You can't censor away extremism or any other problem(freddiedeboer.substack.com)
freddiedeboer.substack.com
You can't censor away extremism or any other problem
https://freddiedeboer.substack.com/p/you-cant-censor-away-extremism-or
860 comments
This is just a few people explaining how they de-radicalized. Now imagine the opposite, someone with some slightly bad opinion suddenly finds themselves shut out of the main platforms because of hate speech rules. They now become more radicalized. Due to the number of people constantly being suspended/banned I think there is a greater chance that these people will become radicalized, than someone will realize they have a bad opinion because they got suspended/banned.
I'm reminded of Daryl Davis, and the way he de-radicalized KKK members. He did it by talking to them, engaging them in speech. It feels like hate speech censoring could actually lead to more radicalization as people feel persecuted and become even more radical than if you had let them talk. It's a hard problem because you can get radicalization if you allow people to create their own echo chambers of hate. How do you balance trying to avoid creating these kinds of echo chambers, versus creating radicals by pushing them to other sites where there are no restrictions?
I'm reminded of Daryl Davis, and the way he de-radicalized KKK members. He did it by talking to them, engaging them in speech. It feels like hate speech censoring could actually lead to more radicalization as people feel persecuted and become even more radical than if you had let them talk. It's a hard problem because you can get radicalization if you allow people to create their own echo chambers of hate. How do you balance trying to avoid creating these kinds of echo chambers, versus creating radicals by pushing them to other sites where there are no restrictions?
>Now imagine the opposite, someone with some slightly bad opinion suddenly finds themselves shut out of the main platforms because of hate speech rules. They now become more radicalized.
This is a bad argument; it is a fact, for example, that child pornography by being censored creates a taboo around it. It's also true that some people will seek it out because of its taboo nature - something it would not be (or only to a lesser extent) if it weren't illegal. The fact that people will download and masturbate to child porn because it is illegal is not a good argument against child porn laws.
We (justifiably, I think) do not allow speech for the purposes of terrorist recruitment. The fact that someone is mistakenly banned for terrorist recruitment and later becomes radicalized is not a good argument to allow terrorist recruitment.
The argument is fundamentally self-defeating; it presupposes that free speech is so good and basic that it overrides all other rights. However, it also supposes that people in general lack sufficient ability to introspect after being censored - people are thought of here not as rational beings to use their rights of speech to engage in democratic deliberation, but as animals who when poked by a stick become enraged.
>He did it by talking to them, engaging them in speech.
Why should it be society's burden to deradicalize people? Does this work at scale? What of all the people who heard Davis or his ideas but were not persuaded? Is the number of people he failed to convince known?
Finally, what of the people who, according to your theory, only become more 'radicalized' when they encounter the position that their views are wrong or harmful?
There's just as good of a chance that one hundred Daryl Davis' trying to deradicalize people will actually cause radicals to dig in their heels. Maybe these hypothetical Davis' don't have a welcoming tone. Maybe the radical doesn't want to listen to a hypothetical Davis because of his race. Maybe the radical actually publicises the exchange and uses it as a megaphone to gish-gallop with 'radical' ideas. Maybe the radical convinces a hypothetical Davis that actually the radical and hateful ideas are correct. Doesn't honest and open dialogue, after all, permit both sending and receiving?
I feel as though the Daryl Davis approach has a lot more risk and a lot less going for it empirically than you suppose.
This is a bad argument; it is a fact, for example, that child pornography by being censored creates a taboo around it. It's also true that some people will seek it out because of its taboo nature - something it would not be (or only to a lesser extent) if it weren't illegal. The fact that people will download and masturbate to child porn because it is illegal is not a good argument against child porn laws.
We (justifiably, I think) do not allow speech for the purposes of terrorist recruitment. The fact that someone is mistakenly banned for terrorist recruitment and later becomes radicalized is not a good argument to allow terrorist recruitment.
The argument is fundamentally self-defeating; it presupposes that free speech is so good and basic that it overrides all other rights. However, it also supposes that people in general lack sufficient ability to introspect after being censored - people are thought of here not as rational beings to use their rights of speech to engage in democratic deliberation, but as animals who when poked by a stick become enraged.
>He did it by talking to them, engaging them in speech.
Why should it be society's burden to deradicalize people? Does this work at scale? What of all the people who heard Davis or his ideas but were not persuaded? Is the number of people he failed to convince known?
Finally, what of the people who, according to your theory, only become more 'radicalized' when they encounter the position that their views are wrong or harmful?
There's just as good of a chance that one hundred Daryl Davis' trying to deradicalize people will actually cause radicals to dig in their heels. Maybe these hypothetical Davis' don't have a welcoming tone. Maybe the radical doesn't want to listen to a hypothetical Davis because of his race. Maybe the radical actually publicises the exchange and uses it as a megaphone to gish-gallop with 'radical' ideas. Maybe the radical convinces a hypothetical Davis that actually the radical and hateful ideas are correct. Doesn't honest and open dialogue, after all, permit both sending and receiving?
I feel as though the Daryl Davis approach has a lot more risk and a lot less going for it empirically than you suppose.
> Why should it be society's burden to deradicalize people?
Because your neighbor's problem eventually becomes your problem. Cases in point: Saudi Arabia helps 9/11 terrorists; US meddling in South American politics promoting fascists, death squads, and the War on Drugs fueling powerful gangs and cartels; Western-caused climate change refugees fleeing Africa, the Middle East, and South America; Dec 8, 1947.
> Does this work at scale?
No. It doesn't matter if something is difficult or not if it is a moral duty to counter. "I do not fight fascists because I will win. I fight fascists because they are fascists." ― Chris Hedges." It is a moral imperative for anyone and everyone in a potential capacity of mentorship to dispel and debunk faulty ideas that neighborhood youth get involved with. No one can be an island onto themselves and local community is essential (although all-but-dissolved in most modern city life). (Boston Marathon Bombers)
"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it" - The Friends of Voltaire by Beatrice Hall
When you start editorializing an individual's speech rather than debating them, it's a slippery-slope down the road to censorship and fascism. There are some costs to having an open society, like the risks of being open. You might hear some idea you might not like, or find absolutely repugnant. Having venues that can debate and debunk bad ideas with better better ones is preferable to preaching to the choir. Someone can't influence or the change minds of people they refuse to talk or listen to. Society will eventually come to a head if there become separate, hermetically-sealed ideological camps persist for much longer; this is a very dangerous phenomenon for social stability.
Because your neighbor's problem eventually becomes your problem. Cases in point: Saudi Arabia helps 9/11 terrorists; US meddling in South American politics promoting fascists, death squads, and the War on Drugs fueling powerful gangs and cartels; Western-caused climate change refugees fleeing Africa, the Middle East, and South America; Dec 8, 1947.
> Does this work at scale?
No. It doesn't matter if something is difficult or not if it is a moral duty to counter. "I do not fight fascists because I will win. I fight fascists because they are fascists." ― Chris Hedges." It is a moral imperative for anyone and everyone in a potential capacity of mentorship to dispel and debunk faulty ideas that neighborhood youth get involved with. No one can be an island onto themselves and local community is essential (although all-but-dissolved in most modern city life). (Boston Marathon Bombers)
"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it" - The Friends of Voltaire by Beatrice Hall
When you start editorializing an individual's speech rather than debating them, it's a slippery-slope down the road to censorship and fascism. There are some costs to having an open society, like the risks of being open. You might hear some idea you might not like, or find absolutely repugnant. Having venues that can debate and debunk bad ideas with better better ones is preferable to preaching to the choir. Someone can't influence or the change minds of people they refuse to talk or listen to. Society will eventually come to a head if there become separate, hermetically-sealed ideological camps persist for much longer; this is a very dangerous phenomenon for social stability.
Yes yes, and these arguments were all well and good when we were young and innocent on the internet.
But those arguments rested on so many assumption that the internet has disproved.
“When you editorialize instead of debate...” for example - There are ways to configure sentences that they will parasitically thrive on debate, without actually being debated. Like a virus that targets the immune system.
This happens all the time - cranks, nazis, racists of all stripes will want to start a discussion on “IQ” or some seemingly innocent facet so that they can appear to be a victim and radicalize minds which don’t have an anti virus pre installed.
I forget the original saying, but agitators deign to argue with you. They don’t really think your ideas or rebuttals are material, instead you are simply a backdrop for them to perform their recruitment drives.
But those arguments rested on so many assumption that the internet has disproved.
“When you editorialize instead of debate...” for example - There are ways to configure sentences that they will parasitically thrive on debate, without actually being debated. Like a virus that targets the immune system.
This happens all the time - cranks, nazis, racists of all stripes will want to start a discussion on “IQ” or some seemingly innocent facet so that they can appear to be a victim and radicalize minds which don’t have an anti virus pre installed.
I forget the original saying, but agitators deign to argue with you. They don’t really think your ideas or rebuttals are material, instead you are simply a backdrop for them to perform their recruitment drives.
>Because your neighbor's problem eventually becomes your problem.
This is an argument for doing something, not necessarily for putting a burden on individuals to counter extremist and murderous ideology - especially those who are most likely to be targeted by it. It may be a moral imperative, but moral imperatives really are sensetive to a variety of individual circumstances to exercise, because they only work by way of moral obligations and moral responsibilities - both of which are only parts of rational decision making.
Someone who has had a strong past of experiencing racism may balk at the idea of starting a dialogue with an extremist whose entire ideology is founded on the view that he is not even worthy of consideration as a civilized person.
I firmly believe that most people lack the capacity of mentorship, or if they have it, then they are not terribly experienced with it. The fact that professional mentors take so much time and effort to nurture someone who they know is already receptive and still fail should be a testament to a significantly worse ability in the common person to do that, especially when, as I mentioned, communication is a two way street. What makes you think the mentors will be any less susceptible to radicalization than the people they are mentoring?
The biggest problem is that most people do not have the requisite knowledge to be such mentors. They may know racism is wrong, but maybe they can't explain it sufficiently well. They may appeal to humanity, but it may not get far to do so with someone whose ideology for the past two decades has been the fundamental inhumanity of the person they're talking to. Needless to say, all this completely leaves out the fact that I really don't think most extremists are keeping an open mind in the first place.
>When you start editorializing an individual's speech rather than debating them, it's a slippery-slope down the road to censorship and fascism.
Slippery slopes need to be justified, not merely supposed. The mechanism needs to be explained and the risk made clear. For example, the mechanism that one form of speech (like hate speech, defined stringently) can be banned. It is not at all obvious that this leads to other ideas being banned; the legislature, for instance, need not and generally does not work on the basis of precedent. Superior courts can override precedent. Similarly, the fact that a hate speech law can be abused is not a good argument; plenty of laws can be abused, including, say, anti-terrorism laws. This does not mean that anti-terrorism laws should be done away with.
>Having venues that can debate and debunk bad ideas with better better ones is preferable to preaching to the choir.
This assumes the debating and debunking works and wins out over rhetoric. We're not dealing with pure ideas, we're dealing with two forms of expression of those ideas: firstly, hate speech which is a generally non-argumentative and derogatory expression of the idea designed to be hurtful; secondly, speeches, texts, videos, music, etc. which combines rhetoric and argumentation. Debate does nothing for the first category. It may do something for the latter category, but it's unclear if it does so at the scale or effectiveness to satisfy the moral obligation you pointed out.
>Someone can't influence or the change minds of people they refuse to talk or listen to.
The point of the laws discussed is not to change peoples' minds, it's to hobble the spread of their ideas.
This is an argument for doing something, not necessarily for putting a burden on individuals to counter extremist and murderous ideology - especially those who are most likely to be targeted by it. It may be a moral imperative, but moral imperatives really are sensetive to a variety of individual circumstances to exercise, because they only work by way of moral obligations and moral responsibilities - both of which are only parts of rational decision making.
Someone who has had a strong past of experiencing racism may balk at the idea of starting a dialogue with an extremist whose entire ideology is founded on the view that he is not even worthy of consideration as a civilized person.
I firmly believe that most people lack the capacity of mentorship, or if they have it, then they are not terribly experienced with it. The fact that professional mentors take so much time and effort to nurture someone who they know is already receptive and still fail should be a testament to a significantly worse ability in the common person to do that, especially when, as I mentioned, communication is a two way street. What makes you think the mentors will be any less susceptible to radicalization than the people they are mentoring?
The biggest problem is that most people do not have the requisite knowledge to be such mentors. They may know racism is wrong, but maybe they can't explain it sufficiently well. They may appeal to humanity, but it may not get far to do so with someone whose ideology for the past two decades has been the fundamental inhumanity of the person they're talking to. Needless to say, all this completely leaves out the fact that I really don't think most extremists are keeping an open mind in the first place.
>When you start editorializing an individual's speech rather than debating them, it's a slippery-slope down the road to censorship and fascism.
Slippery slopes need to be justified, not merely supposed. The mechanism needs to be explained and the risk made clear. For example, the mechanism that one form of speech (like hate speech, defined stringently) can be banned. It is not at all obvious that this leads to other ideas being banned; the legislature, for instance, need not and generally does not work on the basis of precedent. Superior courts can override precedent. Similarly, the fact that a hate speech law can be abused is not a good argument; plenty of laws can be abused, including, say, anti-terrorism laws. This does not mean that anti-terrorism laws should be done away with.
>Having venues that can debate and debunk bad ideas with better better ones is preferable to preaching to the choir.
This assumes the debating and debunking works and wins out over rhetoric. We're not dealing with pure ideas, we're dealing with two forms of expression of those ideas: firstly, hate speech which is a generally non-argumentative and derogatory expression of the idea designed to be hurtful; secondly, speeches, texts, videos, music, etc. which combines rhetoric and argumentation. Debate does nothing for the first category. It may do something for the latter category, but it's unclear if it does so at the scale or effectiveness to satisfy the moral obligation you pointed out.
>Someone can't influence or the change minds of people they refuse to talk or listen to.
The point of the laws discussed is not to change peoples' minds, it's to hobble the spread of their ideas.
Let's not confuse or conflate the bounds of in-person speech, with printed or online content. These differ slightly.
> Similarly, the fact that a hate speech law can be abused is not a good argument; plenty of laws can be abused, including, say, anti-terrorism laws.
False equivalency, red herring, and two wrongs don't make a right. Laws can be written across a continuum of vagueness and precision. Laws must be continually updated and oversight assured so that policy underpinning is implemented in good faith and appropriately. Crafting particular words for a law alone is insufficient to accomplish the presupposed objectives. The real world doesn't work like that.
> What makes you think the mentors will be any less susceptible to radicalization than the people they are mentoring?
Did your professor allow this kind of crap to fly?
> This is an argument for doing something
You proved my point for me. Tragedy of the Commons makes everyone's responsibility no one's responsibility. No one else is likely to do something just because you talk about it but don't walk the walk. "Be the change you seek" because waiting for Godot is a terrible idea. Take ownership yourself and do it.
> Debate does nothing for the first category.
I suggest taking another look at history [0]; ethos, pathos, and logos; and, finally, hate deradicalizers, often former believers.
0: Rhetoric was a popular form of live entertainment for centuries, if not more. "The Most Famous Man in America: The Biography of Henry Ward Beecher" - Derby Applegate (2006) re: touring abolitionism speech performer, and his sister's book likely being one of the final proverbial straws that broke the camel's back regarding the Civil War.
Saudi Arabia, regardless of many other concerns in the Kingdom, has an entire department in the MoI that has processed thousands of now former Jihadi's. [1]
1: https://www.cfr.org/expert-brief/saudi-deradicalization-expe...
Dereck Black changed his mind after 2 years of Shibbat dinners. [2]
2: https://bunewsservice.com/can-a-white-supremacist-be-deradic...
> speeches, texts, videos, music, etc.
content
> hobble the spread of their ideas
Cartoons of Muhammed plus the Quran is better than burning and banning the Quran, because that reinforces an adversarial and underground dynamic rather than dialogue. Who decides which ideas are "good" or "bad?" You? Verizon? Dept of Safe Ideas? Censorship/hobbling powers never end well. "Absolute power..."
I think I'm done here because you've stopped listening and went off into the weeds rather than be honest.
> Similarly, the fact that a hate speech law can be abused is not a good argument; plenty of laws can be abused, including, say, anti-terrorism laws.
False equivalency, red herring, and two wrongs don't make a right. Laws can be written across a continuum of vagueness and precision. Laws must be continually updated and oversight assured so that policy underpinning is implemented in good faith and appropriately. Crafting particular words for a law alone is insufficient to accomplish the presupposed objectives. The real world doesn't work like that.
> What makes you think the mentors will be any less susceptible to radicalization than the people they are mentoring?
Did your professor allow this kind of crap to fly?
> This is an argument for doing something
You proved my point for me. Tragedy of the Commons makes everyone's responsibility no one's responsibility. No one else is likely to do something just because you talk about it but don't walk the walk. "Be the change you seek" because waiting for Godot is a terrible idea. Take ownership yourself and do it.
> Debate does nothing for the first category.
I suggest taking another look at history [0]; ethos, pathos, and logos; and, finally, hate deradicalizers, often former believers.
0: Rhetoric was a popular form of live entertainment for centuries, if not more. "The Most Famous Man in America: The Biography of Henry Ward Beecher" - Derby Applegate (2006) re: touring abolitionism speech performer, and his sister's book likely being one of the final proverbial straws that broke the camel's back regarding the Civil War.
Saudi Arabia, regardless of many other concerns in the Kingdom, has an entire department in the MoI that has processed thousands of now former Jihadi's. [1]
1: https://www.cfr.org/expert-brief/saudi-deradicalization-expe...
Dereck Black changed his mind after 2 years of Shibbat dinners. [2]
2: https://bunewsservice.com/can-a-white-supremacist-be-deradic...
> speeches, texts, videos, music, etc.
content
> hobble the spread of their ideas
Cartoons of Muhammed plus the Quran is better than burning and banning the Quran, because that reinforces an adversarial and underground dynamic rather than dialogue. Who decides which ideas are "good" or "bad?" You? Verizon? Dept of Safe Ideas? Censorship/hobbling powers never end well. "Absolute power..."
I think I'm done here because you've stopped listening and went off into the weeds rather than be honest.
>Laws can be written across a continuum of vagueness and precision. Laws must be continually updated and oversight assured so that policy underpinning is implemented in good faith and appropriately. Crafting particular words for a law alone is insufficient to accomplish the presupposed objectives. The real world doesn't work like that.
I very much agree; the law should be evidence-based and continuously under review to ensure scientific and philosophical argumentation gets a look-in to the results.
>"Be the change you seek" because waiting for Godot is a terrible idea. Take ownership yourself and do it.
I still agree that indvidual action can work well, but this says nothing of whether individual action is sufficient to accomplish the aims of the moral obligation you outlined.
>Saudi Arabia, regardless of many other concerns in the Kingdom, has an entire department in the MoI that has processed thousands of now former Jihadi's.
This is fantastic, but it does not prove the supremacy of individual action - it only proves that state counter-speech can work in certain instances. That's admirable in itself, and it can work very well. My only qualm is that it is unclear whether it should be the whole solution or only part of it. Naturally, I prefer legislation that does not restrict freedom - to restrict it as little as possible to accomplish the aims therein. However, this says nothing about the cases that fail, and the cases that fester. My point about mentorship has gone unaddressed - you proposed a system where people could individually take it upon themselves to persuade others, as an alternative to the state. I think it can work, but I'm still skeptical about the scale it can work at. You mentioned moral obligations, and you also said that difficulty is irrelevant to whether we should try our best to fulfill them. It seems here that freedom of speech and the moral course of action may be in conflict, doesn't it?
>Cartoons of Muhammed plus the Quran is better than burning and banning the Quran, because that reinforces an adversarial and underground dynamic rather than dialogue.
I agree! But I neither suggested banning the Quran nor did I even suggest banning Das Kapital - what I suggested was a restriction on hate speech. I think this preserves the thought/speech dichotomy, something which even liberals should be convinced of.
>Who decides which ideas are "good" or "bad?" You? Verizon? Dept of Safe Ideas?
It's not about goodness and badness, it's about harm. I'm not imposing some moralistic framework on law here (although that has been gaining steam recently). Rather, I am proposing that even if we abide by the harm principle and we keep up with modern neuroscience and philosophy, we end up with harm from certain speech. The legislature, through debate and consideration of the peer-reviewed scientific conclusions, will decide how the law should be crafted. The law will also be read over through special debate and involve the consultation of various interest groups, from the people it's supposed to represent to the legal scholars who are experts on the topic. I realize this is an 'ideal', but it's how I'd like it to be done in order to accept it. I'm sure that if you agreed with me, you'd have it done the same way.
>Censorship/hobbling powers never end well.
They do; an upstream commenter mentioned post-WWII Germany, and arguably threats, libel, child pornography, and assault work just fine. We have censorship, we don't have unlimited freedom of speech on any country on earth. The question is not whether to draw the line, but where to draw the line - something I argue should be considered through scientific and political debate.
I very much agree; the law should be evidence-based and continuously under review to ensure scientific and philosophical argumentation gets a look-in to the results.
>"Be the change you seek" because waiting for Godot is a terrible idea. Take ownership yourself and do it.
I still agree that indvidual action can work well, but this says nothing of whether individual action is sufficient to accomplish the aims of the moral obligation you outlined.
>Saudi Arabia, regardless of many other concerns in the Kingdom, has an entire department in the MoI that has processed thousands of now former Jihadi's.
This is fantastic, but it does not prove the supremacy of individual action - it only proves that state counter-speech can work in certain instances. That's admirable in itself, and it can work very well. My only qualm is that it is unclear whether it should be the whole solution or only part of it. Naturally, I prefer legislation that does not restrict freedom - to restrict it as little as possible to accomplish the aims therein. However, this says nothing about the cases that fail, and the cases that fester. My point about mentorship has gone unaddressed - you proposed a system where people could individually take it upon themselves to persuade others, as an alternative to the state. I think it can work, but I'm still skeptical about the scale it can work at. You mentioned moral obligations, and you also said that difficulty is irrelevant to whether we should try our best to fulfill them. It seems here that freedom of speech and the moral course of action may be in conflict, doesn't it?
>Cartoons of Muhammed plus the Quran is better than burning and banning the Quran, because that reinforces an adversarial and underground dynamic rather than dialogue.
I agree! But I neither suggested banning the Quran nor did I even suggest banning Das Kapital - what I suggested was a restriction on hate speech. I think this preserves the thought/speech dichotomy, something which even liberals should be convinced of.
>Who decides which ideas are "good" or "bad?" You? Verizon? Dept of Safe Ideas?
It's not about goodness and badness, it's about harm. I'm not imposing some moralistic framework on law here (although that has been gaining steam recently). Rather, I am proposing that even if we abide by the harm principle and we keep up with modern neuroscience and philosophy, we end up with harm from certain speech. The legislature, through debate and consideration of the peer-reviewed scientific conclusions, will decide how the law should be crafted. The law will also be read over through special debate and involve the consultation of various interest groups, from the people it's supposed to represent to the legal scholars who are experts on the topic. I realize this is an 'ideal', but it's how I'd like it to be done in order to accept it. I'm sure that if you agreed with me, you'd have it done the same way.
>Censorship/hobbling powers never end well.
They do; an upstream commenter mentioned post-WWII Germany, and arguably threats, libel, child pornography, and assault work just fine. We have censorship, we don't have unlimited freedom of speech on any country on earth. The question is not whether to draw the line, but where to draw the line - something I argue should be considered through scientific and political debate.
Science, as colloquially understood, seeks to empirically validate truth - true things can cause “harm.” So which is it? Are you looking for censorship of untrue ideas as discovered through open scientific inquiry, or, are you looking to censor ideas which cause harm. You can’t have both.
Put that aside, first principles, how can you hold a robust scientific debate on a topic that’s censored? The historical and common sense evidence strongly indicates it’s not possible.
Put that aside, first principles, how can you hold a robust scientific debate on a topic that’s censored? The historical and common sense evidence strongly indicates it’s not possible.
> it presupposes that free speech is so good and basic that it overrides all other rights.
Yes. Speech is not action :)
Yes. Speech is not action :)
No. Weaponized disinformation is no more speech than an AR15 is a musket.
Modern threats require modern constraints.
Modern threats require modern constraints.
The fact that speech can be distinguished from action does not in itself provide a reason to prioritize speech over action. Further, speech and action share a number of commonalities that there are good arguments made (by Susan Brison and Frederick Schauer, for instance) that the categorical difference between them rests on a philosophical error.
When one censors 'speech' they are really censoring thought. We just call it speech because that's the highest-bandwidth and lowest-latency mechanism us humans have to exchange our ideas. Eumemics and eugenics are two sides of the same coin, and I am very suspicious of people practicing either of them.
>When one censors 'speech' they are really censoring thought.
This is incorrect; we would surely say that a hypothetical person who cannot communicate at all, only absorb information, has thoughts, even if he has no speech. Further, thoughts are abstract, quite literally figments of the imagination. Speech is concrete as something we do with thought.
Just because someone is prohibited from, say, shouting that Jews should be rounded up and shot in a Jewish neighborhood it does not mean he cannot think it or even express the idea in other contexts. Speech is expressive in that it takes an abstract idea and makes it concrete through the action of speaking. Only certain forms of the expression of that idea, in certain contexts, would be prohibited.
A baseball player will get in trouble for swinging his bat on a busy street. He may still swing it at the stadium without any trouble. The act of swinging the bat hasn't been prohibited, only its specific 'expression', provided by its context as determined by time and place and who is around him. The player has freedom of bat-swinging. We have freedom of thought.
The idea that speech is not action is a relic of the doctrine of mind-body dualism, in which the effect of words on a listener is so substantially different that they are deemed lesser harms, because they affect the mind, not the body. Advances in neuroscience and philosophy have put dualism in hot water[0]. The law in several non-speech related areas has for a long time realized dualism is false, such as with the issue of the insanity defence and voluntary manslaughter.
[0] https://scholarship.law.wm.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1... [1] http://www.susanbrison.com/files/B.16.-speech_harm_and_the_m...
This is incorrect; we would surely say that a hypothetical person who cannot communicate at all, only absorb information, has thoughts, even if he has no speech. Further, thoughts are abstract, quite literally figments of the imagination. Speech is concrete as something we do with thought.
Just because someone is prohibited from, say, shouting that Jews should be rounded up and shot in a Jewish neighborhood it does not mean he cannot think it or even express the idea in other contexts. Speech is expressive in that it takes an abstract idea and makes it concrete through the action of speaking. Only certain forms of the expression of that idea, in certain contexts, would be prohibited.
A baseball player will get in trouble for swinging his bat on a busy street. He may still swing it at the stadium without any trouble. The act of swinging the bat hasn't been prohibited, only its specific 'expression', provided by its context as determined by time and place and who is around him. The player has freedom of bat-swinging. We have freedom of thought.
The idea that speech is not action is a relic of the doctrine of mind-body dualism, in which the effect of words on a listener is so substantially different that they are deemed lesser harms, because they affect the mind, not the body. Advances in neuroscience and philosophy have put dualism in hot water[0]. The law in several non-speech related areas has for a long time realized dualism is false, such as with the issue of the insanity defence and voluntary manslaughter.
[0] https://scholarship.law.wm.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1... [1] http://www.susanbrison.com/files/B.16.-speech_harm_and_the_m...
[deleted]
Speech is action, the whole point of many words is to perform an action.
[deleted]
[deleted]
> child pornography by being censored creates a taboo around it
Surely it's the other way around. It is censored because there is a taboo around it. The taboo comes first.
Surely it's the other way around. It is censored because there is a taboo around it. The taboo comes first.
Daryl Davis does not scale.
Pithy, but I say it after being a big fan of using him as an example.
Persuasion has moved from the cottage industry of human interaction to industrialized consent manufacturing.
Fox and cable television were the steam engine, social media is the industrial revolution. Human scale approaches such as Daryl’s are akin to using buckets to drain a sea.
Pithy, but I say it after being a big fan of using him as an example.
Persuasion has moved from the cottage industry of human interaction to industrialized consent manufacturing.
Fox and cable television were the steam engine, social media is the industrial revolution. Human scale approaches such as Daryl’s are akin to using buckets to drain a sea.
The KKK, once one of the most powerful political forces in the United States, now can't even volunteer to clean up trash off a highway in Georgia.
They numbers are tiny and politically they are impotent.
And none of that change required hate speech laws.
They numbers are tiny and politically they are impotent.
And none of that change required hate speech laws.
We don’t live in that era. Yes Recruiting for extremist causes has never been easier.
There’s a list of extremist groups now that never existed before.
And At no point in the recent past has there been a breach of security in the capitol like in Jan this year.
There’s a list of extremist groups now that never existed before.
And At no point in the recent past has there been a breach of security in the capitol like in Jan this year.
You are talking about squeezing one side of a balloon without noticing that the other end is getting bigger.
The KKK is effectively a non-entity today in modern society, sure. That's partly because "they" became Proud Boys, Patriot Front, etc. etc. As with the broader societal trends of transitioning away from traditional pre-digital power structures and groups, a rich ecosystem of new white nationalist groups have sprung up in the digital age to feed off the same hate that the KKK used to organize around.
The KKK is effectively a non-entity today in modern society, sure. That's partly because "they" became Proud Boys, Patriot Front, etc. etc. As with the broader societal trends of transitioning away from traditional pre-digital power structures and groups, a rich ecosystem of new white nationalist groups have sprung up in the digital age to feed off the same hate that the KKK used to organize around.
> This is just a few people explaining how they de-radicalized. Now imagine the opposite
How do you downplay "a few people" saying one thing, without giving even a single example of your imaginary opposite?
How do you downplay "a few people" saying one thing, without giving even a single example of your imaginary opposite?
Disrupting the operational tempo and capacity of these fringe groups doesn't mean you end up solving the problem for every person.
> some slightly bad opinion suddenly finds themselves shut out of the main platforms because of hate speech rules
A "slightly bad opinion" has to be more than "slightly bad" to break hate speech rules.
If you feel a platform is overzealous in enforcing hate speech rules, don't use it. Or maybe ask yourself some questions before moving out.
EDIT: the rain of downvotes is telling as usual.
A "slightly bad opinion" has to be more than "slightly bad" to break hate speech rules.
If you feel a platform is overzealous in enforcing hate speech rules, don't use it. Or maybe ask yourself some questions before moving out.
EDIT: the rain of downvotes is telling as usual.
> EDIT: the rain of downvotes is telling as usual.
You suggest that people subject to social stigma and censure should "maybe ask [themselves] some questions". Do you think the reaction you are receiving should cause you to question your own position?
You suggest that people subject to social stigma and censure should "maybe ask [themselves] some questions". Do you think the reaction you are receiving should cause you to question your own position?
skillfully done.
> Do you think the reaction you are receiving should cause you to question your own position?
If there was a clear accusation of hate speech on my behalf I would certainly do.
Would you?
If there was a clear accusation of hate speech on my behalf I would certainly do.
Would you?
No, of course not. Why should I be disposed to take an accusation of hate speech at face value? I certainly don't have any hate in my heart for people. If I say something, it's because I think it is (or at least may be) true. Whether that might potentially in some abstract way cause others to feel hate is frankly not my business.
Now, if I'm wrong about some point of fact, I am more than willing to be corrected. And that's all it should take.
If someone feels the need to go beyond merely arguing my claim is false and use the accusation of hate speech, I'm going to seriously doubt that person is intellectually serious or acting in good faith.
Now, if I'm wrong about some point of fact, I am more than willing to be corrected. And that's all it should take.
If someone feels the need to go beyond merely arguing my claim is false and use the accusation of hate speech, I'm going to seriously doubt that person is intellectually serious or acting in good faith.
Nobody is accusing you of hate speech. The downvotes are accusing you of being wrong, though. You might question your position, not because it might be hateful, but because it might be wrong.
Give me some good reasons for believing that a "slightly bad opinion" and "hate speech" can be easily confused and I'll be ready to rethink my position.
Questioning our own positions is the opposite of bigotry, after all.
Questioning our own positions is the opposite of bigotry, after all.
Your claim was that even the simple accusation of "hate speech" should be taken at face value and be cause for introspection, seemingly regardless of the circumstances.
Now here you are asking for reasons before you reevaluate your own position when we claim you are in error. Do you not see the hypocrisy?
You are welcome to expect arguments before you change your mind. You can be "innocent until proven guilty". That's all the rest of us ask. Telling others to assume fault when you yourself do not is a rather poor way to argue.
Now here you are asking for reasons before you reevaluate your own position when we claim you are in error. Do you not see the hypocrisy?
You are welcome to expect arguments before you change your mind. You can be "innocent until proven guilty". That's all the rest of us ask. Telling others to assume fault when you yourself do not is a rather poor way to argue.
No. I don't see the hypocrisy.
The opinion of an independent adjudicator like the platform you're on with hopefully unbiased hate speech rules should be considered evidence in a way that the bad faith arguments of the person you're arguing with is not.
That is, I should not necessarily take your accusation of hate speech at face value, because you've proven to be willing to try and use it to win an argument. But if dang said that I was doing something that broke the rules, I would be more introspective. This is, yes, technically an argument from authority, but so is basically everything in the world of social dynamics.
So the burden of proof for you and the burden of proof for hacker news as a platform may be different, but that has nothing to do with me vs. you.
So I'll repeat what the other user said: if dang@ came along and asked you to stop engaging in hateful rhetoric, would you take a moment to introspect on that, or would you first reaction be to argue and demand proof?
Mine would be to try and figure out what he was referring to, and then probably to do less of it. And indeed, when chastised by him, that's more or less what I've done.
The opinion of an independent adjudicator like the platform you're on with hopefully unbiased hate speech rules should be considered evidence in a way that the bad faith arguments of the person you're arguing with is not.
That is, I should not necessarily take your accusation of hate speech at face value, because you've proven to be willing to try and use it to win an argument. But if dang said that I was doing something that broke the rules, I would be more introspective. This is, yes, technically an argument from authority, but so is basically everything in the world of social dynamics.
So the burden of proof for you and the burden of proof for hacker news as a platform may be different, but that has nothing to do with me vs. you.
So I'll repeat what the other user said: if dang@ came along and asked you to stop engaging in hateful rhetoric, would you take a moment to introspect on that, or would you first reaction be to argue and demand proof?
Mine would be to try and figure out what he was referring to, and then probably to do less of it. And indeed, when chastised by him, that's more or less what I've done.
>> If you feel a platform is overzealous in enforcing hate speech rules, don't use it. Or maybe ask yourself some questions before moving out.
>> EDIT: the rain of downvotes is telling as usual.
> You suggest that people subject to social stigma and censure should "maybe ask [themselves] some questions". Do you think the reaction you are receiving should cause you to question your own position?
That's twisting what he said. What he actually said is that people who are bothered by "hate speech rules" should "maybe ask [themselves] some questions." He didn't say anything about downvotes should lead to similar self-questioning.
>> EDIT: the rain of downvotes is telling as usual.
> You suggest that people subject to social stigma and censure should "maybe ask [themselves] some questions". Do you think the reaction you are receiving should cause you to question your own position?
That's twisting what he said. What he actually said is that people who are bothered by "hate speech rules" should "maybe ask [themselves] some questions." He didn't say anything about downvotes should lead to similar self-questioning.
You are making a distinction without a difference.
As the original article itself pointed out, "hate speech" is an amorphous term that can refer to any socially unacceptable speech. Actual "hate speech rules" and "downvotes" are merely different mechanisms for enforcing social stigma and censure.
The real question is at what point should a person reevaluate their opinions in light of social pressure. The commenter I was responding to seems to think it should only happen when the opinions in question are ones he disagrees with.
EDIT: additionally, complaining about downvotes is also against the rules of this site. For someone to do that while extending no charity to those who break other content moderation policies is...interesting.
As the original article itself pointed out, "hate speech" is an amorphous term that can refer to any socially unacceptable speech. Actual "hate speech rules" and "downvotes" are merely different mechanisms for enforcing social stigma and censure.
The real question is at what point should a person reevaluate their opinions in light of social pressure. The commenter I was responding to seems to think it should only happen when the opinions in question are ones he disagrees with.
EDIT: additionally, complaining about downvotes is also against the rules of this site. For someone to do that while extending no charity to those who break other content moderation policies is...interesting.
> You are making a distinction without a difference.
> As the original article itself pointed out, "hate speech" is an amorphous term that can refer to any socially unacceptable speech. Actual "hate speech rules" and "downvotes" are merely different mechanisms for enforcing social stigma and censure.
No, you're blurring things to the point of meaninglessness. For instance, "first post" competitions would clearly be unacceptable speech here, yet I doubt anyone in good faith would actually call such posts hate speech.
Also, downvotes are an opaque mechanism. Did your post get downvoted because you said something widely regarded as offensive, are this guy [1], or because you just had too many typos? You can speculate, but that's not very good basis for self reflection. However, if you're mad you can't post speech that (for instance) directly attacks some race as being inferior [2], you have a pretty clear thing to reflect on.
[1] https://www.csmonitor.com/World/2015/0701/What-happened-to-t...
[2] https://www.facebook.com/communitystandards/objectionable_co...
> As the original article itself pointed out, "hate speech" is an amorphous term that can refer to any socially unacceptable speech. Actual "hate speech rules" and "downvotes" are merely different mechanisms for enforcing social stigma and censure.
No, you're blurring things to the point of meaninglessness. For instance, "first post" competitions would clearly be unacceptable speech here, yet I doubt anyone in good faith would actually call such posts hate speech.
Also, downvotes are an opaque mechanism. Did your post get downvoted because you said something widely regarded as offensive, are this guy [1], or because you just had too many typos? You can speculate, but that's not very good basis for self reflection. However, if you're mad you can't post speech that (for instance) directly attacks some race as being inferior [2], you have a pretty clear thing to reflect on.
[1] https://www.csmonitor.com/World/2015/0701/What-happened-to-t...
[2] https://www.facebook.com/communitystandards/objectionable_co...
> For instance, "first post" competitions would clearly be unacceptable speech here, yet I doubt anyone in good faith would actually call such posts hate speech.
No, but if you think "hate speech" is a clear and definite term with no room for abuse you are deluding yourself.
> Also, downvotes are an opaque mechanism.
The person I responded to clearly knew why he was being downvoted. He presented an unsophisticated and (on this forum) unpopular view of hate speech rules.
> If you're mad you can't post speech that (for instance) directly attacks some race as being inferior [2], you have a pretty clear thing to reflect on.
Insisting that people who are critical of hate speech rules are white supremacists is not a constructive take.
No, but if you think "hate speech" is a clear and definite term with no room for abuse you are deluding yourself.
> Also, downvotes are an opaque mechanism.
The person I responded to clearly knew why he was being downvoted. He presented an unsophisticated and (on this forum) unpopular view of hate speech rules.
> If you're mad you can't post speech that (for instance) directly attacks some race as being inferior [2], you have a pretty clear thing to reflect on.
Insisting that people who are critical of hate speech rules are white supremacists is not a constructive take.
> No, but if you think "hate speech" is a clear and definite term with no room for abuse you are deluding yourself.
That's actually not an uncommon situation for a term, such is human language. Most terms have fairly established meanings with a bit of fuzziness around the edges. That doesn't mean they're meaningless, arbitrary, or not useful.
> The person I responded to clearly knew why he was being downvoted. He presented an unsophisticated and (on this forum) unpopular view of hate speech rules.
It was certainly unpopular with some, but I wouldn't say it was unsophisticated.
> Insisting that people who are critical of hate speech rules are white supremacists is not a constructive take.
I made it clear that was an example, not a general characterization of any group. You'll also notice I didn't specify any particular race, so you're basically putting words in my mouth.
That's actually not an uncommon situation for a term, such is human language. Most terms have fairly established meanings with a bit of fuzziness around the edges. That doesn't mean they're meaningless, arbitrary, or not useful.
> The person I responded to clearly knew why he was being downvoted. He presented an unsophisticated and (on this forum) unpopular view of hate speech rules.
It was certainly unpopular with some, but I wouldn't say it was unsophisticated.
> Insisting that people who are critical of hate speech rules are white supremacists is not a constructive take.
I made it clear that was an example, not a general characterization of any group. You'll also notice I didn't specify any particular race, so you're basically putting words in my mouth.
Those are several points that I would love to argue with you about, but I'm afraid we would be drifting from the main point.
The other commenter was insisting others take certain accusations or forms of disapproval at face value, yet was hypocritically quite defensive when challenged and down-voted.
The idea that "hate speech" accusations form some sort of special category where they should be taken at face value is absurd.
It was a rhetorical attempt to bully someone into submission that failed because most people here recognized it for what it was. And then he whined about people not approving.
The other commenter was insisting others take certain accusations or forms of disapproval at face value, yet was hypocritically quite defensive when challenged and down-voted.
The idea that "hate speech" accusations form some sort of special category where they should be taken at face value is absurd.
It was a rhetorical attempt to bully someone into submission that failed because most people here recognized it for what it was. And then he whined about people not approving.
that all depends on who makes the rules and how they distinguish "bad and not tolerated" from "slightly bad but tolerated".
Who decides?
> Who decides?
Who decides if Nazis are allowed to put signs with Nazi slogans on your lawn?
Who decides if Nazis are allowed to put signs with Nazi slogans on your lawn?
> on your lawn?
Twitter and Facebook are common carriers[0], not private residences.
Edit: 0: By which I mean that are common carriers in practice, not that they are legally recognized as such.
Twitter and Facebook are common carriers[0], not private residences.
Edit: 0: By which I mean that are common carriers in practice, not that they are legally recognized as such.
> Twitter and Facebook are common carriers, not private residences.
Except they aren't actually common carriers. Some people are of the opinion they should be, but having an opinion doesn't make it so.
Except they aren't actually common carriers. Some people are of the opinion they should be, but having an opinion doesn't make it so.
> Some people are of the opinion they should be
I think (based on this) that you mean they aren't legally recognized as common carriers (which isn't what I said, but fair enough; edited to clarify).
I think (based on this) that you mean they aren't legally recognized as common carriers (which isn't what I said, but fair enough; edited to clarify).
Today Dr. Seuss is hate speech. Tomorrow Dr. Seuss apologia will be hate speech. Even from the perspective that this is progress, it’s very fast progress. Today’s white supremacists are last week’s liberals who didn’t update their opinions fast enough.
Dr Seuss isn't hate speech, there are a few racist caricatures in a few of his books, that the owners have stopped printing.
A few private platforms have stopped selling those books -- not all of them, neither all platforms nor books.
You can still find those books, you just won't be able to buy official reprints from the copyright holder.
I am not sure where you'll draw the line if you insist that copyright holders continue to issue reprints or if you insist that private platforms continue to offer trade in things they don't want on their platforms.
Would that rule apply to ebay, but not a physical retail store where space is at a premium and people have to make choices about what not to sell every day? And would that rule compel ebay to sell nazi memorabilia or pre-American civil war slave memorabilia (which, afaik, they do not sell)?
The Seuss stuff is something I really can't wrap my head around, because what is it people really want? Just the estate to be compelled to keep printing and selling them, that ebay be compelled to keep allowing them to be sold?
Or some broader rule where any copyright holder of some (contemporarily) objectionable material be compelled to keep offering it, and every store be compelled to keep trading in it? All of those put limits on people's freedoms to choose in ways that make me uncomfortable.
A few private platforms have stopped selling those books -- not all of them, neither all platforms nor books.
You can still find those books, you just won't be able to buy official reprints from the copyright holder.
I am not sure where you'll draw the line if you insist that copyright holders continue to issue reprints or if you insist that private platforms continue to offer trade in things they don't want on their platforms.
Would that rule apply to ebay, but not a physical retail store where space is at a premium and people have to make choices about what not to sell every day? And would that rule compel ebay to sell nazi memorabilia or pre-American civil war slave memorabilia (which, afaik, they do not sell)?
The Seuss stuff is something I really can't wrap my head around, because what is it people really want? Just the estate to be compelled to keep printing and selling them, that ebay be compelled to keep allowing them to be sold?
Or some broader rule where any copyright holder of some (contemporarily) objectionable material be compelled to keep offering it, and every store be compelled to keep trading in it? All of those put limits on people's freedoms to choose in ways that make me uncomfortable.
Racist caricatures are right down the middle of any definition of hate speech I’ve seen.
The production of an instant moral consensus - so that everyone, all at once, decides freely that it would be incompatible with their values to do what they were doing yesterday - is an exercise of a kind of power. “It’s just private entities doing what they want to do” doesn’t mitigate that.
The production of an instant moral consensus - so that everyone, all at once, decides freely that it would be incompatible with their values to do what they were doing yesterday - is an exercise of a kind of power. “It’s just private entities doing what they want to do” doesn’t mitigate that.
When did Dr. Seuss become hate speech? Last I checked, my extended family still reads Dr. Seuss books with their small children.
Yes, Seuss's family pulled a few books from production but I don't recall anyone decrying them.
Yes, Seuss's family pulled a few books from production but I don't recall anyone decrying them.
I'm guessing GP is referring to how eBay banned third parties from selling used copies of the Dr. Seuss books in question. See https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26347654
Hm. I think it would have been in better taste to just have a flag on the items stating that the family has discontinued distribution for xyz reason.
> Today Dr. Seuss is hate speech.
That's a bizarre assertion to make.
That's a bizarre assertion to make.
DC1350(5)
> I'm reminded of Daryl Davis, and the way he de-radicalized KKK members. He did it by talking to them, engaging them in speech.
1. Daryl Davis is literally the only person ever mentioned in this context. If you don't have another example, this doesn't even qualify as an anecdote anymore.
2. Over the course of multiple decades Davis has, via intense 1:1 work and personal connection and at great risk to himself, deradicalized something like 4 dozen people. Gab alone had something like 400k accounts.
1. Daryl Davis is literally the only person ever mentioned in this context. If you don't have another example, this doesn't even qualify as an anecdote anymore.
2. Over the course of multiple decades Davis has, via intense 1:1 work and personal connection and at great risk to himself, deradicalized something like 4 dozen people. Gab alone had something like 400k accounts.
Megan Phelps-Roper
Derek Black
George Wallce Via Shirley Chisholm
https://www.persuasion.community/p/lessons-of-a-black-pionee...
You are basically saying there is no power in integration and that the only effort for reform here should be negative consequences which generally isn't viewed as a liberal perspective on how to reintegrate people into society.
https://www.persuasion.community/p/lessons-of-a-black-pionee...
You are basically saying there is no power in integration and that the only effort for reform here should be negative consequences which generally isn't viewed as a liberal perspective on how to reintegrate people into society.
> You are basically saying there is no power in integration and that the only effort for reform here should be negative consequences
This an extremely uncharitable reading of my comments. I said a structural problem needs a structural solution, not a personal one. To invoke Chisholm as a counter-argument is offensive.
This an extremely uncharitable reading of my comments. I said a structural problem needs a structural solution, not a personal one. To invoke Chisholm as a counter-argument is offensive.
Then you are easily offended.
I think that what Chisholm did and what Davis did are in the same category. Personal outreach. You said Davis was the only example so I gave you others.
I don't think racism is structural problem Its a personal problem solved by individuals. The legacy of racism and its former codification may be structural and addressed in a structural way but they are fundamental different.
I think that what Chisholm did and what Davis did are in the same category. Personal outreach. You said Davis was the only example so I gave you others.
I don't think racism is structural problem Its a personal problem solved by individuals. The legacy of racism and its former codification may be structural and addressed in a structural way but they are fundamental different.
> I don't think racism is structural problem... The legacy of racism and its former codification may be structural and addressed in a structural way but they are fundamental different.
E2 80 8A
E2 80 8A
>How do you balance trying to avoid creating these kinds of echo chambers, versus creating radicals by pushing them to other sites where there are no restrictions?
By aggressively removing it to limit how many people are exposed, and ban those who continue to share it despite being warned.
By aggressively removing it to limit how many people are exposed, and ban those who continue to share it despite being warned.
I've spent a lot of time on the internet over the years and the thing i've noticed about 'extremists' of all kinds, not just idealogical ones, i'm talking like any kind of 'extremist'.
That handful of people you find on a forum more devoted to whatever the topic or niche is than everybody else. The people that are there, every day all day immersing themselves in it.
They're fairly far and few between and wherever you are, you'll find a handful of them.
The rest of the more vocal people tend to be the 'hanger ons'. The ones that are into it as long as a bunch of others are, but will lose interest if the community fades.
Then there's the flyby people. The people who just kinda pop in from time to time, but aren't really all that into it.
People seem to forget, we call it 'extremism' because it's at the extreme end of what humans consider acceptable. Most people in general are not 'extremists' with anything otherwise we wouldn't call it extreme. It would just be normal.
Everyone seems to just label someone as an extremist for a tweet, or an idea, or some words, where in reality a good majority of people being labeled as such are more than likely just normal people saying some dumb shit.
Everybody's done it, nobody's perfect anywhere, everybody believes ridiculous things from time to time, everybody's said things they shouldn't, it's just a part of being human. It doesn't mean they're this, that or the other kind of extremist.
That handful of people you find on a forum more devoted to whatever the topic or niche is than everybody else. The people that are there, every day all day immersing themselves in it.
They're fairly far and few between and wherever you are, you'll find a handful of them.
The rest of the more vocal people tend to be the 'hanger ons'. The ones that are into it as long as a bunch of others are, but will lose interest if the community fades.
Then there's the flyby people. The people who just kinda pop in from time to time, but aren't really all that into it.
People seem to forget, we call it 'extremism' because it's at the extreme end of what humans consider acceptable. Most people in general are not 'extremists' with anything otherwise we wouldn't call it extreme. It would just be normal.
Everyone seems to just label someone as an extremist for a tweet, or an idea, or some words, where in reality a good majority of people being labeled as such are more than likely just normal people saying some dumb shit.
Everybody's done it, nobody's perfect anywhere, everybody believes ridiculous things from time to time, everybody's said things they shouldn't, it's just a part of being human. It doesn't mean they're this, that or the other kind of extremist.
Underrepresented POV I think. ‘Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity’.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hanlon's_razor
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hanlon's_razor
I don't believe in Hanlon's Razor at all any more, personally. John Oliver does a good job debunking it here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dXyO_MC9g3k
...or laziness
This is the mainstream thinking in the US, and why everything is rapidly going to shit. There is no "we" giving people a microphone -- it is a select few oligarchs who wield exceptional control to take away the voice of people whose views run counter to their and their cronies' interests. There is no democracy, representation, or transparency. The coming antithesis will be bypassing the control of the few on the voice of the many, and an Internet 2.0 which will be resistant to the censorship of tyrants and warmongers who comprise the faux-woke... if we still have the electrical grid & network infrastructure to support it...
I agree.
It's a shame that the "public square" became privately owned. Google/Twitter/Facebook/etc all have advertisers to answer to and they'll pull the plug on someone not by any fair means of measure but how it affect their public image (and really their bottom line.
Honestly, I'd rather the "deplorables" do their thing in public rather than in their private channels. At least in public they'd have to defend their ideas against the general public and I do think their ideas would not hold muster.
It's a shame that the "public square" became privately owned. Google/Twitter/Facebook/etc all have advertisers to answer to and they'll pull the plug on someone not by any fair means of measure but how it affect their public image (and really their bottom line.
Honestly, I'd rather the "deplorables" do their thing in public rather than in their private channels. At least in public they'd have to defend their ideas against the general public and I do think their ideas would not hold muster.
Your assertion lacks any evidence, supporting argument, or sense. It also offers no solution beyond "some different kind of Internet" but don't describe anything beyond, essentially, decentralization.
And that the United States will actually collapse in the near term because Twitter is mismanaged.
And that the United States will actually collapse in the near term because Twitter is mismanaged.
You're right. I could spend the hours of time to write a thesis here, as if it will make any difference, but I prefer to just play the contrarian while I blow off from work for a few. Take it with a grain of salt, or just mark it as spam, etc. I wonder at what point I will just have this account banned off HN.
Big Corporations and centralization of power in the hands of few is bad, and should be obvious. I didn't think one would need to provide evidence that Big Tech/Media is canceling conservatives, libertarians, liberals, greens, and surmise that it is not just because of benevolence or public safety. These are advertising companies deciding what is truth. That some people still cheer as more people that disagree with them are wiped off the de facto public forums on the internet should be scary to the masses who are just one wrong idea from being similarly muzzled. US Government is bought and paid for by these interests, so the logical hope would be for a technical solution by neoanarchists and other disenfranchised groups. It's just a hope, sure... but with the growth of crypto for decentralizing infrastructure (Filecoin, for instance) it seems all but inevitable.
Big Corporations and centralization of power in the hands of few is bad, and should be obvious. I didn't think one would need to provide evidence that Big Tech/Media is canceling conservatives, libertarians, liberals, greens, and surmise that it is not just because of benevolence or public safety. These are advertising companies deciding what is truth. That some people still cheer as more people that disagree with them are wiped off the de facto public forums on the internet should be scary to the masses who are just one wrong idea from being similarly muzzled. US Government is bought and paid for by these interests, so the logical hope would be for a technical solution by neoanarchists and other disenfranchised groups. It's just a hope, sure... but with the growth of crypto for decentralizing infrastructure (Filecoin, for instance) it seems all but inevitable.
> These are advertising companies deciding what is truth.
This seems to be lost on so many.
This seems to be lost on so many.
You're still using subjective terms like "extremism" in an objective way that the people on the receiving end of that label may not agree with or appreciate.
As a child, I admit I was wholly taken in by digital IP extremists. The danger is real!
They convinced me that information should be free, that it was my right to download and share anything digital, and that the internet was a borderless utopia of knowledge, limited only by our imaginations.
Now, I see the error of my ways and the harm I, and those who thought like me, caused to content creators and distributors.
I understand that the internet is safer, more secure, and better when suckled through the benevolent teat of large corporations, whose wisdom and foresight allows it to be restricted, filtered, and repackaged into a socially beneficial form.
Don't make the same mistakes I did! Trust in the system.
They convinced me that information should be free, that it was my right to download and share anything digital, and that the internet was a borderless utopia of knowledge, limited only by our imaginations.
Now, I see the error of my ways and the harm I, and those who thought like me, caused to content creators and distributors.
I understand that the internet is safer, more secure, and better when suckled through the benevolent teat of large corporations, whose wisdom and foresight allows it to be restricted, filtered, and repackaged into a socially beneficial form.
Don't make the same mistakes I did! Trust in the system.
You dropped this!
\s
\s
This is a major and serious point. A large part of the discourse has become slapping the "extremist" label on every dissenting argument from the other side, regardless of where the position actually is.
If you ban extremist speech, then what you've done is create incentive to label everything as extremist.
If you ban extremist speech, then what you've done is create incentive to label everything as extremist.
I consider myself a centrist; I have been registered as an Independent since the first election in which I voted (21 years ago), and have voted for Republicans and Democrats. Politically, I try to evaluate each idea on the merits rather than which party espouses it. So at least in my case, there is no "other side" which I can mislabel as extremist.
That doesn't mean others won't label you as "extremist".
Hahaha, of course there is. There is much more to politics than only Republicans and Democrats - in many countries they would both the be considered as on the same side.
It's like the rule: "Don't debate Nazis, just punch them!"
Sounds reasonable, but the real fun begins when you add: "Everyone who disagrees with us is a Nazi."
Sounds reasonable, but the real fun begins when you add: "Everyone who disagrees with us is a Nazi."
No, it doesn't sound rasonable. Even if it's real Nazis. It's an absolutely retarded standpoint.
Al-Quaeda might not appreciate being labelled as extremists, but so what?
We have to call things as we see them. And build a consensus around what's core values and within the normal range of debate, and what's beyond that into dangerous, destructive, and even murderous.
We have to call things as we see them. And build a consensus around what's core values and within the normal range of debate, and what's beyond that into dangerous, destructive, and even murderous.
You ban dangerous actions, not speech. When you start censoring speech, you give a very small group of people the ability to silence whoever the please.
Surely it's also true that when you start preventing actions, you give a very small group of people the ability to prevent the actions of whoever they please. It's hard to see the point being made here.
The difference is that when you prevent speech, you can't even discuss changes to the laws. The censorship of speech gives a much different and somewhat hidden form of power.
> you can't even discuss changes to the laws.
This is a type of speech, and there's no reason all speech should be regulated uniformly, just as speech and actions should presumably not be regulated uniformly. We could just prevent actions without bothering with speech at all, but (for instance) it seems similarly doable to ban certain forms of speech that cause unreasonable harm while leaving other forms alone.
An argument could be made that this would be yet another slippery slope, but I think at some point every law falls into that category and a society must decide whether the benefits are worth the tradeoff of starting down this path.
This is a type of speech, and there's no reason all speech should be regulated uniformly, just as speech and actions should presumably not be regulated uniformly. We could just prevent actions without bothering with speech at all, but (for instance) it seems similarly doable to ban certain forms of speech that cause unreasonable harm while leaving other forms alone.
An argument could be made that this would be yet another slippery slope, but I think at some point every law falls into that category and a society must decide whether the benefits are worth the tradeoff of starting down this path.
> ... but (for instance) it seems similarly doable to ban certain forms of speech that cause unreasonable harm while leaving other forms alone.
Except that the article is dedicated to explaining why it's not doable and is a bad idea in general
Except that the article is dedicated to explaining why it's not doable and is a bad idea in general
The article at best provides some counter-examples, it does not refute the case in general, especially when other commenters in this thread have pointed out counter-counter examples such as in West Germany. The article also does a pretty poor job of the examples it describes; for example, it assumes that the rise in FN is on the backs of those who share the ideas targeted by anti-hate-speech laws, but to support FN one need not have any of the racist views the laws target. The article only shows that the laws have failed to target right-wing thought; it does not speak to their ability to target the spread of far-right ideas which they were designed to do.
The article does not address whether it's a bad idea, rather its entire premise is built upon the fact that whether it's a good or bad idea is preceeded by a question of whether it works. Several commenters in this thread have pointed out that it does work, and is used to this day, from China's authoritarian implementation to the implementation at other points in history.
I think it's reasonable to make the statement: assuming that it does work (and maybe the article is correct - perhaps it doesn't work), would it still be a good idea? What number of people would it need to work on to be a good idea?
The article does not address whether it's a bad idea, rather its entire premise is built upon the fact that whether it's a good or bad idea is preceeded by a question of whether it works. Several commenters in this thread have pointed out that it does work, and is used to this day, from China's authoritarian implementation to the implementation at other points in history.
I think it's reasonable to make the statement: assuming that it does work (and maybe the article is correct - perhaps it doesn't work), would it still be a good idea? What number of people would it need to work on to be a good idea?
> The article does not address whether it's a bad idea, rather its entire premise is built upon the fact that whether it's a good or bad idea is preceeded by a question of whether it works.
An idea that won't work is a bad idea (to me, at least). From the author's point of view, it won't.
> Several commenters in this thread have pointed out that it does work, and is used to this day, from China's authoritarian implementation to the implementation at other points in history. > I think it's reasonable to make the statement: assuming that it does work (and maybe the article is correct - perhaps it doesn't work), would it still be a good idea? What number of people would it need to work on to be a good idea?
Depends on your definition of works, I suppose. Unfortunately, even if the main objective could be achieved, there are drawbacks. I would not call CCP's implementation a success. Sure, in some ways they have squashed extremist speech, but at what cost? They have also severely curtailed speech which criticizes them. They have created a culture of fear where people self-censor. Eventually, I believe something will have to give. It is simply too early to call it a success or failure at this moment.
An idea that won't work is a bad idea (to me, at least). From the author's point of view, it won't.
> Several commenters in this thread have pointed out that it does work, and is used to this day, from China's authoritarian implementation to the implementation at other points in history. > I think it's reasonable to make the statement: assuming that it does work (and maybe the article is correct - perhaps it doesn't work), would it still be a good idea? What number of people would it need to work on to be a good idea?
Depends on your definition of works, I suppose. Unfortunately, even if the main objective could be achieved, there are drawbacks. I would not call CCP's implementation a success. Sure, in some ways they have squashed extremist speech, but at what cost? They have also severely curtailed speech which criticizes them. They have created a culture of fear where people self-censor. Eventually, I believe something will have to give. It is simply too early to call it a success or failure at this moment.
Who is "we" that is determining the acceptable range of debate?
They might not agree with it at first, but eventually, large numbers will realize how non-sensical their movement's ideas are. CNN has profiled former QAnon true believers who are recovering.
CNN is just Fox News for extremists like you though.
Not only subjective terms like "extremism", but religious terms like "redeemable".
You and the people who talk like you are getting downvoted because you're contrarian without actually stating an opposition view to what you're ranting about.
Someone: Extremism is bad.
You: What is extreme is subjective.
The next step would be for you to try to give counter points of what you think is extreme that others consider not, or better, what you think is not extreme that others consider so.
Someone: Extremism is bad.
You: What is extreme is subjective.
The next step would be for you to try to give counter points of what you think is extreme that others consider not, or better, what you think is not extreme that others consider so.
You're just fishing for a nice and spicy example. Here is a bland one. I have a big cup of coffee on my desk right now. There are very nice people right here in the USA, some of whom have been my neighbors and about whom I will say nothing derogatory, who think I am endangering my immortal soul by drinking from it. Some might consider taking one or the other stance extreme. I think weighing in publicly on whether such behavior is "redeemable" as if it is for you to decide is wholly inappropriate.
You're looking for some pure, objective reality that will never exist. You have to take a stand at some point; you cannot sit and say "who am I to say?"
"Who am I to say if it's wrong to believe people should be killed and enslaved for their skin color? Next thing you know, someone may think I'm extreme for what coffee I drink!"
Your argument is inane.
"Who am I to say if it's wrong to believe people should be killed and enslaved for their skin color? Next thing you know, someone may think I'm extreme for what coffee I drink!"
Your argument is inane.
The redemption of (your fictional) people who merely believe your more inflammatory example is not between them and me.
If "extremism" gets banned, then individuals are incentivized to get things they don't like labeled as extremism.
We wouldn't be having this conversation if the things labeled extremism and thus banned from platforms was limited to ISIS and literal Nazis. It's been far more far-reaching than that. That's probably due to the incentives, not due to actual extremism.
So if extremism is subjective, it will be leveraged in that manner and you can't stop that behavior without removing the incentive. That's the point, not what is or isn't labeled as extremism today, that's just dragging the conversation back into the political gutter.
We wouldn't be having this conversation if the things labeled extremism and thus banned from platforms was limited to ISIS and literal Nazis. It's been far more far-reaching than that. That's probably due to the incentives, not due to actual extremism.
So if extremism is subjective, it will be leveraged in that manner and you can't stop that behavior without removing the incentive. That's the point, not what is or isn't labeled as extremism today, that's just dragging the conversation back into the political gutter.
> The next step would be for you to try to give counter points of what you think is extreme that others consider not, or better, what you think is not extreme that others consider so.
I don't think that's the next step. I think the point is that what is extreme will always be subjective, and there is danger in allowing some group of people to decide what speech is acceptable and what is not.
I don't think that's the next step. I think the point is that what is extreme will always be subjective, and there is danger in allowing some group of people to decide what speech is acceptable and what is not.
> You and the people who talk like you are getting downvoted because you're contrarian without actually stating an opposition view to what you're ranting about.
That's true, but it also seems to effectively hold for the originals, only with conformity rather than contrarianism:
> Someone: Extremism is bad.
That's true, but it also seems to effectively hold for the originals, only with conformity rather than contrarianism:
> Someone: Extremism is bad.
Also "remorse", which is quite popular among SJW tribunals when they silence someone on unverified testimony of the popular clique members while refusing to hear the "accused" even once.
I'm not even close to being a leftist (but sign me up for Social Justice without the tribunals).
Regarding your parent post's objection to "redeemable", it's not used in religious contexts exclusively.
Regarding your parent post's objection to "redeemable", it's not used in religious contexts exclusively.
Yeah, sure, the original post meant that extremists are redeemable for prizes. The other senses of the term are religious metaphor.
Definitely agree. Back a year ago when you saw this kind of stuff all over Facebook, Twitter, Reddit, etc it felt so normalized. But now you have to go to fringe websites. It's still out there of course. But it's very back-alley and definitely makes you take what people are saying with a grain of salt.
And would you describe things as having gotten better this last year?
And I don't mean in the sense that you see less of what you think there should be less of online, because then of course it's gotten better if that's the variable being minimized. I mean, do you think the state of extremism and political unity has improved via marginalizing views held by enormous portions of the population?
And I don't mean in the sense that you see less of what you think there should be less of online, because then of course it's gotten better if that's the variable being minimized. I mean, do you think the state of extremism and political unity has improved via marginalizing views held by enormous portions of the population?
Yeah, absolutely! In the US, Trump lost the election and we have a genuine shot at police reform for the first time in a generation. In Europe, the pandemic has exposed the incompetence of empty populism.
If it’s difficult for you to see political opinions with which you disagree being normalized, imagine how they feel.
It's completely disingenuous to categorize statements like "the US tax code is too complex" and "Jews are starting forest fires with space lasers" both as just 'political opinions'.
It’s only “disingenuous” if you aren’t a liberal. I’m a liberal so I believe people are free to hold any opinion they want as long as they are not promoting direct harm to anyone else and I will not be shamed out of a liberal position by exceptional strawmen.
https://nymag.com/intelligencer/article/marjorie-taylor-gree...
Blonde, sure, but IDK if I'd call her hair straw.
Blonde, sure, but IDK if I'd call her hair straw.
I truly love this exchange.
Any rational person, upon hearing a suggestion that Jews are responsible for starting forest fires by using laser beams from space, would quite naturally dismiss the claim as nonsense. And the claim is so ludicrous on its face that a rational person would, quite justifiably, assume that it could only ever be offered as a strawman.
Yet, here we are--with a duly elected congresswoman of the United States House of Representatives subscribing to (or at least passively entertaining) said strawman.
There are, perhaps, too many well-intentioned, good-natured, level-headed people out there who are simply far too sheltered from the outright insanity that is permeating throughout our society. They are far too quick to assume that human nature tends toward the same pursuits of truth, justice, and liberty which they value--and that merely offering a level playing field for ideas to compete will inevitably result in the triumph of those which are most noble.
While this bright-eyed and bushy-tailed approach to life is certainly tempting to adopt, it is quite disconnected from the world around us. Rationality and competence are under siege by people who do not adhere to an evidence-based view of reality. One cannot be reasonable with unreasonable people. Moderation and ostracization are perfectly valid tools for dealing with such individuals.
Any rational person, upon hearing a suggestion that Jews are responsible for starting forest fires by using laser beams from space, would quite naturally dismiss the claim as nonsense. And the claim is so ludicrous on its face that a rational person would, quite justifiably, assume that it could only ever be offered as a strawman.
Yet, here we are--with a duly elected congresswoman of the United States House of Representatives subscribing to (or at least passively entertaining) said strawman.
There are, perhaps, too many well-intentioned, good-natured, level-headed people out there who are simply far too sheltered from the outright insanity that is permeating throughout our society. They are far too quick to assume that human nature tends toward the same pursuits of truth, justice, and liberty which they value--and that merely offering a level playing field for ideas to compete will inevitably result in the triumph of those which are most noble.
While this bright-eyed and bushy-tailed approach to life is certainly tempting to adopt, it is quite disconnected from the world around us. Rationality and competence are under siege by people who do not adhere to an evidence-based view of reality. One cannot be reasonable with unreasonable people. Moderation and ostracization are perfectly valid tools for dealing with such individuals.
As insane as that idea is, we have a democracy to effectively allow the public litigate the acceptability of holding such ideas. If her district finds no fault with her holding that opinion, then it matters not what others think. Democracy doesn’t mean politicians that you don’t elect can’t hold opinions you don’t like, however disparate from your own. If you disagree with that then you simply do not believe in democracy.
> If her district finds no fault with her holding that opinion, then it matters not what others think.
You know, this is literally what the infamous poem warned about:
"Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out --- Because I was not a Jew." (Also, it wasn't my district.)
You know, this is literally what the infamous poem warned about:
"Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out --- Because I was not a Jew." (Also, it wasn't my district.)
Again: I will not be shamed out of a liberal position by exceptional strawmen. Please make a real argument for why you think democracy is flawed. Appeals to emotion only degrade discussion.
> Greene "liked" posts calling for the assassination of prominent Democrats including former President Barack Obama, former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi. Greene also used social media to boost false claims that deadly mass shootings in Parkland, Florida, Newtown, Connecticut and Las Vegas, Nevada were actually staged.
>In light of the revelations, the Democratic-controlled House took the unusual step of voting to force Greene to be removed from her committee assignments on Thursday after GOP leaders failed to act on the matter themselves. Democrats were joined by 11 Republicans who voted to strip Greene of the assignments.
https://www.newsweek.com/marjorie-taylor-greene-has-average-...
That's a lot of "they came for the [...] and I did nothing" and not a lot of straw in the "straw-congresswoman".
>In light of the revelations, the Democratic-controlled House took the unusual step of voting to force Greene to be removed from her committee assignments on Thursday after GOP leaders failed to act on the matter themselves. Democrats were joined by 11 Republicans who voted to strip Greene of the assignments.
https://www.newsweek.com/marjorie-taylor-greene-has-average-...
That's a lot of "they came for the [...] and I did nothing" and not a lot of straw in the "straw-congresswoman".
There is no evidence that a significant amount of the population seriously entertains that idea, regardless of this politician, so it remains an exceptional strawman that seems to used for the purpose of justifying censorship.
It also has much lower reach. Ideas are viral - and don't spread very well when they have less exposure.
You don't see too much pro-Al-Qaeda or ISIS material on Facebook or Twitter. Somehow, we've managed to censor that extremism away.
You don't see too much pro-Al-Qaeda or ISIS material on Facebook or Twitter. Somehow, we've managed to censor that extremism away.
I have to wonder out loud whether many commenters actual took the time to read the article.
Because the responses seemed heavily skewed towards "Yeah, but..." responses that sort of ignore the article's main point.
Because the responses seemed heavily skewed towards "Yeah, but..." responses that sort of ignore the article's main point.
The article's main point is that apparently, 10-15% of the population voting for unabashed fascists is a colossal policy failure.
Whereas I don't actually see that as a problem. In any given population, about ~10% of it is going to be sympathetic to fascism. That is what it is. It's an appealing ideology for a lot of people.
The problem is when you get closer to 40%, or 50%, and unabashed fascists start making their way onto first, and second-rate political party tickets, as opposed to ineffectively screaming into the void on third-rate ones. We've just had a bit of a brush with that, here. Not interested in repeating it.
Whereas I don't actually see that as a problem. In any given population, about ~10% of it is going to be sympathetic to fascism. That is what it is. It's an appealing ideology for a lot of people.
The problem is when you get closer to 40%, or 50%, and unabashed fascists start making their way onto first, and second-rate political party tickets, as opposed to ineffectively screaming into the void on third-rate ones. We've just had a bit of a brush with that, here. Not interested in repeating it.
And when the systems/mechanisms for them to oppress their opposition were already put in place in an attempt to limit them from getting that power in the first place.
If you go down the path of "censorship", you better get it right. Otherwise you'll probably be worse off in the end.
If you go down the path of "censorship", you better get it right. Otherwise you'll probably be worse off in the end.
As the history of repressive governments has shown, they don't need any help in building these systems. Once they are in power, they really don't give two figs about how open and accepting your society was of viewpoints like theirs, and they can quickly assemble any instruments of oppression that they find lacking.
Just because you don't see it doesn't mean it isn't there. Do you really believe that because it isn't on Facebook people have stopped believing it? That people don't believe these things, teach their kids, find other avenues to organize? We have not censored anything away, ever, in human history. This article actually directly addresses that.
You're not hanging out in the correct circles or reading in the correct language. The proper nouns aren't there but the ideas and principles are. White supremacists spend more time praising police killings than they do saying "Heil Hitler". Change your language to Arabic and you'll see much more praise for the beheading of Samuel Paty than "praise IS"
This is a shortsighted take IMO. "Fringe" websites are growing rapidly while engagement on the big, normal websites is declining or slowing down. The problem is people want to talk about these things, and if that's what people want to talk about they're going to go where they can talk about them. This is directly addressed in the article (when we say we want to ban hate speech, what we really want to ban is hate, but hate cannot be banned). These big legitimate sites only feel permanently dominating now, but are not permanent by any means. People don't go on the internet and talk because talking is a way to use Facebook, people go on Facebook to talk about what they want to talk about. If people want to talk about edgy or even hateful stuff, they will, and if they can't do that on Facebook they'll do it elsewhere.
That's not to even get into the fact that all to often these terms like "fringe websites" are used by entities to shame users into not using their competition, which further degrades the integrity of any anti hate message.
That's not to even get into the fact that all to often these terms like "fringe websites" are used by entities to shame users into not using their competition, which further degrades the integrity of any anti hate message.
>"Fringe" websites are growing rapidly while engagement on the big, normal websites is declining or slowing down.
source?
source?
I don't know about engagement on mainstream sites declining, but the rising popularity of sites like Parler and Gab seems undeniable. Parler's recent (attempted) deplatforming is evidence enough: you don't bother with a tiny fringe site that isn't growing or wielding any influence.
>but the rising popularity of sites like Parler and Gab seems undeniable
It does? Any evidence to support this?
It does? Any evidence to support this?
Just look at the “leaks”...
Their user base is not so big to be worrisome, but it’s undeniably big.
And it’s growing too.
https://ddosecrets.com/wiki/GabLeaks https://ddosecrets.com/wiki/Parler
https://ddosecrets.com/wiki/GabLeaks https://ddosecrets.com/wiki/Parler
Better question:
If increasing, is it because more topics of conversation are getting binned as 'fringe'? Or are extremists merely circumventing centralized efforts at blocking by moving around, which is exactly what those anti-censorship weenies like me jave been saying will be the inevitable result?
The problem you ignore or quash never goes away. It just gets harder and more distributed.
The problem you ignore or quash never goes away. It just gets harder and more distributed.
It's certainly true, if the only places where people criticise the mainstream consensus are dominated by neo-nazis, that reasonable people are less likely to criticise the mainstream consensus. The downside to that 'solution' is, sometimes reasonable people need to criticise the mainstream consensus.
I recently thought of a great example: If the goal is to reduce extremism, one of the lowest-hanging fruit would be to censor all videos of police misconduct. There is no question that seeing the George Floyd video radicalised a number of people. If your solution is that a few tech giants should have memory holed that video as it began to go viral, I'd love to hear you explain yourself.
I recently thought of a great example: If the goal is to reduce extremism, one of the lowest-hanging fruit would be to censor all videos of police misconduct. There is no question that seeing the George Floyd video radicalised a number of people. If your solution is that a few tech giants should have memory holed that video as it began to go viral, I'd love to hear you explain yourself.
So we should not expose abuse and misconduct, just because some fragile minds get upset when brown people speak up?
I raised that example to illustrate the problem with censorship as a social engineering tool, there seems to be a lack of nuance around the question.
People talk as if the question of whether to censor is identical to whether there are viewpoints that are harmful. That's the wrong question IMHO, of course some viewpoints are harmful. Harmful enough that it would be better if they weren't shared, we can all imagine some. Censorship is like torture, we shouldn't swear it off because it doesn't work, but because the benefit we gain from using it is miniscule compared to the harm received when it's used on us.
The George Floyd video is a clear case in point. How many people who were happy to see #45 removed from social media would have been dismayed if the George Floyd video had been similarly removed for the sake of public order? How much benefit did they gain from their enemy being off the platforms compared to the harm it would have done to them if the same tool had been used against them?
Society progresses in proportion to the number of uncomfortable conversations. Because they are uncomfortable, we can all be tempted by people flattering us that we don't need to have them. Therefore, it's a tool that tends to be overused. As such, it should be one that reasonable people of all tribes can agree is a sign of hypocrisy, an opportunity for grandstanding when employed by the other side and soul-searching when employed by our own.
People talk as if the question of whether to censor is identical to whether there are viewpoints that are harmful. That's the wrong question IMHO, of course some viewpoints are harmful. Harmful enough that it would be better if they weren't shared, we can all imagine some. Censorship is like torture, we shouldn't swear it off because it doesn't work, but because the benefit we gain from using it is miniscule compared to the harm received when it's used on us.
The George Floyd video is a clear case in point. How many people who were happy to see #45 removed from social media would have been dismayed if the George Floyd video had been similarly removed for the sake of public order? How much benefit did they gain from their enemy being off the platforms compared to the harm it would have done to them if the same tool had been used against them?
Society progresses in proportion to the number of uncomfortable conversations. Because they are uncomfortable, we can all be tempted by people flattering us that we don't need to have them. Therefore, it's a tool that tends to be overused. As such, it should be one that reasonable people of all tribes can agree is a sign of hypocrisy, an opportunity for grandstanding when employed by the other side and soul-searching when employed by our own.
Yeah, it's a good point. There is however a problem when lies and tribalism take over the agenda, rather than fairness and justice for all. The laws and rule must apply to all, so we must resist unfair special treatment (and you may see this regards to all). The very notion of sides, is false (ie. right vs left).
So bribes, threats, falsehoods, abuse need to be exposed for what it is.
So bribes, threats, falsehoods, abuse need to be exposed for what it is.
Yes. The ability to spread truth must not be compromised to stop the spread of lies.
Can anyone name a time in history where the people censoring things turned out to be the "Good Guys"?
Isn't this subject to survivorship bias? If, 1000 years ago some movement was censored by the "good guys", if they've done a half-competent job, would we even Know they tried censoring things in the first place?
Not to mention how the "good guys" are usually just whomever manages to last/survive
Not to mention how the "good guys" are usually just whomever manages to last/survive
How about in the last 100 years then?
In the 50's-70's, the US tried it's hardest to censor/hide/destroy Marxism, it's ideals, and derivatives (Socialism) - yet it still exists today.
You cannot disappear ideas by silencing the individuals that believe them. Instead of trying to hide them away, the ideas need to be exposed publicly and discussed openly. If one side truly is righteous, it will prevail through open discussion and logic.
Just like in the 50's - what we have today is a weaponized notion of censorship to destroy our political enemies and those who do not think the same way we do. That's certainly not what "Good Guys" do.
In the 50's-70's, the US tried it's hardest to censor/hide/destroy Marxism, it's ideals, and derivatives (Socialism) - yet it still exists today.
You cannot disappear ideas by silencing the individuals that believe them. Instead of trying to hide them away, the ideas need to be exposed publicly and discussed openly. If one side truly is righteous, it will prevail through open discussion and logic.
Just like in the 50's - what we have today is a weaponized notion of censorship to destroy our political enemies and those who do not think the same way we do. That's certainly not what "Good Guys" do.
> If one side truly is righteous, it will prevail through open discussion and logic.
Unfortunately that is not always how it works out.
In Germany in the 1930s the idea that Jews/non-Arians have conspired against Germany and should be retaliated against was discussed openly - and accepted. Obviously it was not righteous.
In several US states in the 1980s the idea that homo sapiens was created by God and creationism should replace evolution in school textbooks was discussed openly - and accepted. Was it righteous?
These are two very different examples, but both ask the same question: What do we do in the case where truly righteous ideas do not prevail?
Unfortunately that is not always how it works out.
In Germany in the 1930s the idea that Jews/non-Arians have conspired against Germany and should be retaliated against was discussed openly - and accepted. Obviously it was not righteous.
In several US states in the 1980s the idea that homo sapiens was created by God and creationism should replace evolution in school textbooks was discussed openly - and accepted. Was it righteous?
These are two very different examples, but both ask the same question: What do we do in the case where truly righteous ideas do not prevail?
The righteous ideals prevailed in the end, in both examples you provided - no?
Nobody pretends Nazism never happened - that would be Censorship. Instead, you can buy, find, read about Nazism - including Mein Kumpf and more.
Creationism is not a dominating idea in the US either - nobody censored Creationism (even to this day you can find private schools that teach it!). Instead, Creationism was defeated by questioning it's teachings, and exposing it's logical flaws.
I do believe you have very eloquently proven my point. Censorship never works.
Nobody pretends Nazism never happened - that would be Censorship. Instead, you can buy, find, read about Nazism - including Mein Kumpf and more.
Creationism is not a dominating idea in the US either - nobody censored Creationism (even to this day you can find private schools that teach it!). Instead, Creationism was defeated by questioning it's teachings, and exposing it's logical flaws.
I do believe you have very eloquently proven my point. Censorship never works.
So what you are saying is that it may take a lot of time, bloodshed or decline before the righteous ideas prevail.
Now, let me ask you this - are you okay to sacrifice your life for a righteous idea? So why should 10 million Jews, Polish, Czechs, Russians, gays, disabled etc.?
Unless you are willing to do so, there is no point to be proven here. History has shown again and again that the righteous ideas do not always prevail (you could even argue that it's a defining human quality).
Every single democratic society is built upon common beliefs of what should/should not be censored. Claiming "censorship never works" is running away from a difficult conversation and not face human reality.
Now, let me ask you this - are you okay to sacrifice your life for a righteous idea? So why should 10 million Jews, Polish, Czechs, Russians, gays, disabled etc.?
Unless you are willing to do so, there is no point to be proven here. History has shown again and again that the righteous ideas do not always prevail (you could even argue that it's a defining human quality).
Every single democratic society is built upon common beliefs of what should/should not be censored. Claiming "censorship never works" is running away from a difficult conversation and not face human reality.
The allied forces did not storm Omaha beach on D-Day to openly discuss Nazism, in case you weren't aware
Winning the war destroyed the Nazi regime - not the Nazi ideas.
That's not how ideas work... (see US Civil War and racism, as just one clear example)
That's not how ideas work... (see US Civil War and racism, as just one clear example)
Yes. 1945 post-war Germany saw mass-censoring as part of the Allied de-Nazification program: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Denazification
"the US Army continued its efforts to denazify Germany through control of German media. The Information Control Division of the US Army had by July 1946 taken control of 37 German newspapers, six radio stations, 314 theaters, 642 cinemas, 101 magazines, 237 book publishers, and 7,384 book dealers and printers."
"the US Army continued its efforts to denazify Germany through control of German media. The Information Control Division of the US Army had by July 1946 taken control of 37 German newspapers, six radio stations, 314 theaters, 642 cinemas, 101 magazines, 237 book publishers, and 7,384 book dealers and printers."
That of course leave the question, was it that that solved the issue or was it the end of the war, or the exposing of the camps (one might not like the local jew, not trust them in general, but still not want to mass murder them) or something else?
Propaganda isn't the same as censorship. It does not appear any of the Allies made it illegal to believe in Nazism, or to write about it, or even dare to own something from the Nazi era.
Nonetheless, it's arguable these efforts were futile, likely misguided, and likely drove some to extremism as a result. You cannot simply compel a population to think a certain way.
Instead, you must allow the "bad" ideas to be exposed in the public forum, and win over the population through logical arguments. Hiding them away does nothing to disappear them.
Regardless, it's pretty well established the average German citizen didn't believe in the extremes the Nazi party had gone to anyway.
Nonetheless, it's arguable these efforts were futile, likely misguided, and likely drove some to extremism as a result. You cannot simply compel a population to think a certain way.
Instead, you must allow the "bad" ideas to be exposed in the public forum, and win over the population through logical arguments. Hiding them away does nothing to disappear them.
Regardless, it's pretty well established the average German citizen didn't believe in the extremes the Nazi party had gone to anyway.
Oh, but the Allies did make Naziism illegal (the Soviets of course went further and made most other political speech illegal in their half of Germany)
Not only did West Germany have denazification programmes, but things like denying the holocaust are still illegal in Germany today, as the article discusses.
It's a bold claim to argue this was "futile" or "likely drove some to extremism" when the context was a reaction to the last war so extreme that it resulted in mass public support for a guy who blamed the Jews and geared up for a second war. Failing to defeat those arguments with logic drove an entire country to extremism, and there were a lot more people who still believed in those extremes in 1946 (even after suffering for them) than express sympathy for Germany's much watered down far right today. I doubt that would radically alter if they relaxed holocaust denial laws today, but there was certainly a time when public debate about whether the Holocaust was real or a big lie would have been useful to anyone wanting to follow in Hitler's footsteps and cast Germany as the victim.
Of course, on the other side the GDR absolutely failed in its attempts to force people to love its state and not realise their friends and family in the West were richer and free-er than them. There were limits to the effectiveness of censorship in achieving those goals, even when the censorship itself was almost unparalleled in its pervasiveness and harshness.
But sometimes not facilitating the discussion terrible niche ideas is much more effective at preventing them from going mainstream than debating them
Not only did West Germany have denazification programmes, but things like denying the holocaust are still illegal in Germany today, as the article discusses.
It's a bold claim to argue this was "futile" or "likely drove some to extremism" when the context was a reaction to the last war so extreme that it resulted in mass public support for a guy who blamed the Jews and geared up for a second war. Failing to defeat those arguments with logic drove an entire country to extremism, and there were a lot more people who still believed in those extremes in 1946 (even after suffering for them) than express sympathy for Germany's much watered down far right today. I doubt that would radically alter if they relaxed holocaust denial laws today, but there was certainly a time when public debate about whether the Holocaust was real or a big lie would have been useful to anyone wanting to follow in Hitler's footsteps and cast Germany as the victim.
Of course, on the other side the GDR absolutely failed in its attempts to force people to love its state and not realise their friends and family in the West were richer and free-er than them. There were limits to the effectiveness of censorship in achieving those goals, even when the censorship itself was almost unparalleled in its pervasiveness and harshness.
But sometimes not facilitating the discussion terrible niche ideas is much more effective at preventing them from going mainstream than debating them
> Oh, but the Allies did make Naziism illegal
You can be a Nazi in the US, UK and I'm sure pretty much anywhere in the world (except Germany) - and not go to jail, etc. So no, the Allies did not make Nazism illegal. Instead, they attempted to squash Nazism through propaganda (both domestic and foreign), and through spreading the truth about what Nazism had accomplished (Holocaust, among other atrocities). There's Holocaust Deniers roaming the streets of the US today - although they are in the extreme minority due overwhelming evidence to the contrary.
In the end, the evils of Nazism led to it's demise, and the free trade of that information championed over censorship.
As an aside, making Holocaust Denial illegal has accomplished nothing - we have Genocide occurring around the world today, including openly in China - the very same country US companies like the NBA and Disney are falling over each other to do business in. China, of course, denies it's a Genocide...
You can be a Nazi in the US, UK and I'm sure pretty much anywhere in the world (except Germany) - and not go to jail, etc. So no, the Allies did not make Nazism illegal. Instead, they attempted to squash Nazism through propaganda (both domestic and foreign), and through spreading the truth about what Nazism had accomplished (Holocaust, among other atrocities). There's Holocaust Deniers roaming the streets of the US today - although they are in the extreme minority due overwhelming evidence to the contrary.
In the end, the evils of Nazism led to it's demise, and the free trade of that information championed over censorship.
As an aside, making Holocaust Denial illegal has accomplished nothing - we have Genocide occurring around the world today, including openly in China - the very same country US companies like the NBA and Disney are falling over each other to do business in. China, of course, denies it's a Genocide...
With all the relevant criticism against German denazification, the policies and laws worked. Not just in Germany, but also in the other countries in Europe wih similar laws. That German laws failed to prevent genozid in other continents is to be expected, I guess.
The point was those polices were not Censorship.
I can buy Nazi paraphernalia today, read about Nazism on Wikipedia, purchase newly printed copies of Mein Kumpf, watch Hitler's speeches on Youtube, and more.
The ideals of Nazism were defeated by openly exposing, and combating them with freely available information.
Censorship would have been to pretend Nazism never happened, and banning of anything that might encroach upon "Right Think".
And think what would happen if someone made Nazism illegal? What would that mean? What about some new group that calls themselves Izan's, but shares all the same ideas of Nazism? Would that be illegal too?
You cannot ban ideas - someone else, at some point in time, will have the very same idea even if they do not know someone else had it first.
Instead, you must fight with logic and exposure - expose bad ideas for what they are, and prove them wrong with logic.
I can buy Nazi paraphernalia today, read about Nazism on Wikipedia, purchase newly printed copies of Mein Kumpf, watch Hitler's speeches on Youtube, and more.
The ideals of Nazism were defeated by openly exposing, and combating them with freely available information.
Censorship would have been to pretend Nazism never happened, and banning of anything that might encroach upon "Right Think".
And think what would happen if someone made Nazism illegal? What would that mean? What about some new group that calls themselves Izan's, but shares all the same ideas of Nazism? Would that be illegal too?
You cannot ban ideas - someone else, at some point in time, will have the very same idea even if they do not know someone else had it first.
Instead, you must fight with logic and exposure - expose bad ideas for what they are, and prove them wrong with logic.
I'm confused now. Either the German laws against hate speach are censorship, as claimed in the original linked blo pst, or they are not.
And funny enough, we Germans are usually hammered by the right for over working on our historical gilt. Especially by the German right wing.
And funny enough, we Germans are usually hammered by the right for over working on our historical gilt. Especially by the German right wing.
I have a saying, that which is abused gets taken away.
Which is say one should be cautious about exercising rights if you want to keep them.
Which is say one should be cautious about exercising rights if you want to keep them.
Modern day Germany is censoring Nazism as far as I'm aware (it's illegal to call yourself a Nazi in Germany, no?).
The parent post asserted the Allies propaganda campaign after the war was censorship - it's flatly not, particularly since everywhere else in the world you can freely call yourself a Nazi with no repercussions. At no point was it illegal anywhere outside Germany to possess a copy of Mein Kumpf, even if it was signed by Hitler himself.
I don't think outlawing Nazism in Germany was a good thing, nor productive. Nazism could be (and very successfully was) destroyed through exposing it's ideals for what they were.
We often forget there was a Nazi movement here in the US leading up to the war - that was also stamped out not by censorship, but through exposing the evils of the Nazi regime.
The parent post asserted the Allies propaganda campaign after the war was censorship - it's flatly not, particularly since everywhere else in the world you can freely call yourself a Nazi with no repercussions. At no point was it illegal anywhere outside Germany to possess a copy of Mein Kumpf, even if it was signed by Hitler himself.
I don't think outlawing Nazism in Germany was a good thing, nor productive. Nazism could be (and very successfully was) destroyed through exposing it's ideals for what they were.
We often forget there was a Nazi movement here in the US leading up to the war - that was also stamped out not by censorship, but through exposing the evils of the Nazi regime.
Honestly cannot- doesn't mean there isn't one, but this leads to a possible heuristic worth exploring.
Censorship of child pornography?
It's not a political ideology or political speech. The reason we came up with freedom of speech is primarily so you can criticize the people in power. I know that people for whatever reason got this weird idea that pornography is somehow free speech, presumably because of lobbying, but historically free speech always coexisted with obscenity laws. If you want to silence your political enemy, it's going to be hard to do on the basis of pornography, but it's rather easy to do on a basis of 'hate speech'.
I don't really consider that censorship. We made it illegal to exploit minors that are unable to make decisions for themselves (both legally and maturely).
Then, at the arbitrary age of 18, we (the US, other countries differ) decided they can participate in, create, and distribute as much self-pornographic material as they want.
The entire LEO world dedicated to combating child pornography revolves around the exploitation of children and how wrong that is.
That's not quite the same as banning ideas, books, etc, simply because some find the words objectionable.
Then, at the arbitrary age of 18, we (the US, other countries differ) decided they can participate in, create, and distribute as much self-pornographic material as they want.
The entire LEO world dedicated to combating child pornography revolves around the exploitation of children and how wrong that is.
That's not quite the same as banning ideas, books, etc, simply because some find the words objectionable.
Your argument/trope fails for a simple reasons: "They" don't exist.
* Here on HN we censor each other.
* The US censors basic nudity.
* Germany censors denying the Holocaust.
* The patent office censors inventions.
* Scientists have devised a peer-censorship system.
* The police censors your attempts to distribute illegal material.
* Banks censor your funds to ISIS.
... the list goes on and on and on.
* Here on HN we censor each other.
* The US censors basic nudity.
* Germany censors denying the Holocaust.
* The patent office censors inventions.
* Scientists have devised a peer-censorship system.
* The police censors your attempts to distribute illegal material.
* Banks censor your funds to ISIS.
... the list goes on and on and on.
Almost half of those are indeed bad guys, and much of the rest does not fit under the normal meaning of the word censorship.
There are different types of extremists, and only one type of extremism is targeted by the mainstream broadcast sites.
It's tiring hearing the "megaphone" meme. It's a loaded term and means more than its literal meaning.
There are extremists on the left and the right. If you only only target extremism on the right, you might think you're doing a service, but in fact you're going to make the problem worse.
Here come the downvotes.
It's tiring hearing the "megaphone" meme. It's a loaded term and means more than its literal meaning.
There are extremists on the left and the right. If you only only target extremism on the right, you might think you're doing a service, but in fact you're going to make the problem worse.
Here come the downvotes.
Well with the major caveat that right wing extremists are currently a lot more dangerous and violent. So they're really just not comparable at all.
1. In what way does it make it worse?
2. Do you have some common examples of left wing extremism that are rampant and unchecked? I have many examples in my personal Facebook feed of right wing extremism, but few or perhaps no left wing extremism, despite many of my right wing friends voicing a similar complaint.
Are you kidding?
CHAZ/CHOP in Seattle.
Portland occupation.
The various summer 2020 riots.
Numerous conservative speakers over the years being blocked from speaking on college campuses...
The answer you'll almost certainly get in rebuttal is, oh, that's not extremism. And that brings us back to this cental question of who decides. I feel like a large percentage of people with strong opinions about censorship in this long posting/thread have a very limited historical memory / education. They want to mash on the Ban button without really understanding the implications for all of us who are not extremists.
I have to swallow the fact that any reply means downvotes in this Silicon Valley community, but:
1. Because you're not actually removing right-wing extremism (which would be nice), you're pushing people into the corner. You can't legally or morally prevent people from having extremist views among themselves, having conversations, and in an Internet age you're going to play wack-a-mole if you try to chase after things, monitor and shut things down. Not to mention the overreach inherent in a real crackdown. By punishing them publicly, you feed into conspiracy theories, you feed into the idea that they are victimized, you feed into the idea of bias, and in the end you make people, more, not less radicalized.
edit: two more (I think) good arguments. One, the U.S. has less extremism than Germany or France, with regards to right-wing extremism, and yet those countries have hate speech laws and ban books and fine people with extremist views. Yet, the FN in France and the AFD in Germany have power locally and possibly nationally. Two, people will use innuendo and implication and code. Thus, you have to ban the code and innuendo. Is that the path you want to go down, banning and evaluating interpretations of speech that is constantly changing as one thing gets banned and a new one sprouts?
This is not new, and we already know this, and we know this from over a century of extremist views. It's not in 2015 that magically extremism started to exist.
The correct way to combat right-wing extremism is to let people be lunatics, make it obvious that they are lunatics, reply to the lunatics with logic and reason, and don't infantalize viewers are being influenced by bad views.
The "megaphone" theory being espoused by mainstream pro-censorship tech people is a cover for the underlying assumption: I know what's good for you, and I feel if I hide content from you, then I can prevent you from being influenced, in short, I, tech censor, protect you from yourself.
I cannot get behind that, and I hope the question that should be on everyone's mind is, who decides what's extremism.
2. Absolutely. Where do you want to start. I could go to Twitter and spend a few minutes to find some, but that would be awkward and appear like cherry picking. There were and still are many posts asking for abolishing of government, of authorities, of institutions. That's been extremist since the 19th century. With regards to racist speech, I offer to you Sarah Jeong (editor from the NYT) tweets which were deleted and apologized (ish) for, but had the editorial board stand behind her and no warnings from Twitter itself.
1. Because you're not actually removing right-wing extremism (which would be nice), you're pushing people into the corner. You can't legally or morally prevent people from having extremist views among themselves, having conversations, and in an Internet age you're going to play wack-a-mole if you try to chase after things, monitor and shut things down. Not to mention the overreach inherent in a real crackdown. By punishing them publicly, you feed into conspiracy theories, you feed into the idea that they are victimized, you feed into the idea of bias, and in the end you make people, more, not less radicalized.
edit: two more (I think) good arguments. One, the U.S. has less extremism than Germany or France, with regards to right-wing extremism, and yet those countries have hate speech laws and ban books and fine people with extremist views. Yet, the FN in France and the AFD in Germany have power locally and possibly nationally. Two, people will use innuendo and implication and code. Thus, you have to ban the code and innuendo. Is that the path you want to go down, banning and evaluating interpretations of speech that is constantly changing as one thing gets banned and a new one sprouts?
This is not new, and we already know this, and we know this from over a century of extremist views. It's not in 2015 that magically extremism started to exist.
The correct way to combat right-wing extremism is to let people be lunatics, make it obvious that they are lunatics, reply to the lunatics with logic and reason, and don't infantalize viewers are being influenced by bad views.
The "megaphone" theory being espoused by mainstream pro-censorship tech people is a cover for the underlying assumption: I know what's good for you, and I feel if I hide content from you, then I can prevent you from being influenced, in short, I, tech censor, protect you from yourself.
I cannot get behind that, and I hope the question that should be on everyone's mind is, who decides what's extremism.
2. Absolutely. Where do you want to start. I could go to Twitter and spend a few minutes to find some, but that would be awkward and appear like cherry picking. There were and still are many posts asking for abolishing of government, of authorities, of institutions. That's been extremist since the 19th century. With regards to racist speech, I offer to you Sarah Jeong (editor from the NYT) tweets which were deleted and apologized (ish) for, but had the editorial board stand behind her and no warnings from Twitter itself.
> You can't legally or morally prevent people from having extremist views
Or, y'know, practically (short of lobotomizing them).
Or, y'know, practically (short of lobotomizing them).
How exactly do we have more right wing extremists in Germany in France? Because if you apply the same poitical standards, the FN and AfD are more like center GOP.
This is a comment steeped in ignorance. But let's put aside that fact. Let's take the following logical conclusion
1. We should ban extremist views
2. The centrist GOP is extremist (since the Front National and the AfD are agreed extreme)
so obviously:
3. We should ban the GOP from Twitter and other places discussed in this thread.
^^ is anyone else seeing this?? Is anyone but me very very scared that people like this are possibly getting hired in Facebook and Twitter and Google?
Banning the GOP would be good for democracy? I've never voted GOP in my life, but the view you've espoused is extremist.
1. We should ban extremist views
2. The centrist GOP is extremist (since the Front National and the AfD are agreed extreme)
so obviously:
3. We should ban the GOP from Twitter and other places discussed in this thread.
^^ is anyone else seeing this?? Is anyone but me very very scared that people like this are possibly getting hired in Facebook and Twitter and Google?
Banning the GOP would be good for democracy? I've never voted GOP in my life, but the view you've espoused is extremist.
I never advoated banning the AfD or the FN, did I? If they are overstepping, like AfD politicians like to do in terms of Volksverhetzung, they get investigated. And if they vilated the law, the go on trial and ma get convicted. Sounds reasonable to me.
And yes, according to European standards, people like Ted Cruz are found in the AfD and FN. If you disagree, please share examples where AfD / FN positions differ from the GOP, meanin where these two parties are farther right then the GOP.
And yes, according to European standards, people like Ted Cruz are found in the AfD and FN. If you disagree, please share examples where AfD / FN positions differ from the GOP, meanin where these two parties are farther right then the GOP.
There isn't a single widely-held opinion that did not begin as an extremist opinion.
And plenty of irrational ideas that became widely held.
And plenty of irrational ideas that became widely held.
Only that we went already through the most hard core right wing positions, and it didn't end well. These experiments happened in the 1920s and 30s. Same goes for Stalins form of Communism, which by the way has nothing to do with socialism.
Just going by the definitions Google provides first, socialism seems pretty similiar to Communism or at least a superset of it.
Communism is intended to produce "a society in which all property is publicly owned and each person works and is paid according to their abilities and needs."
Socialism is "a political and economic theory of social organization which advocates that the means of production, distribution, and exchange should be owned or regulated by the community as a whole."
Socialism means the public owning or regulating everything. Communism is definitely about the public owning everything. And socialism is not necessarily about allocating by need the way Communism is supposed to be.
Maybe that's the National Socialists in Germany called themselves that. The State didn't own everything but it did try to control everything. For the good of the people. Well, some of the people. The definition of Socialism doesn't address that detail.
Communism is intended to produce "a society in which all property is publicly owned and each person works and is paid according to their abilities and needs."
Socialism is "a political and economic theory of social organization which advocates that the means of production, distribution, and exchange should be owned or regulated by the community as a whole."
Socialism means the public owning or regulating everything. Communism is definitely about the public owning everything. And socialism is not necessarily about allocating by need the way Communism is supposed to be.
Maybe that's the National Socialists in Germany called themselves that. The State didn't own everything but it did try to control everything. For the good of the people. Well, some of the people. The definition of Socialism doesn't address that detail.
> As for the "deplorables" who know what they're doing and will never question it or feel any remorse, we should not be giving them a megaphone.
The problem is that this is a very slippery slope. Who gets to decide what's OK and what's not?
The problem is that this is a very slippery slope. Who gets to decide what's OK and what's not?
I hold an extremist view that the war on drugs should end now, with all the drugs banned made legal to sell to anybody over the age of majority in that country (so 18 in the US) and anybody serving time in prison for any drug crime be released immediately.
People usually shut that down in a way that makes it clear they haven't considered the point and don't respect the opinion. It does not make me question that opinion, it makes me despise them more. Where twitter to stop permitting discussion of drug laws, I would not change my mind.
People usually shut that down in a way that makes it clear they haven't considered the point and don't respect the opinion. It does not make me question that opinion, it makes me despise them more. Where twitter to stop permitting discussion of drug laws, I would not change my mind.
> You can't censor it away completely
I don't understand why everyone is saying this. There is not extremist content in north korea.
I don't understand why everyone is saying this. There is not extremist content in north korea.
Agree 100%. I essentially started going down the "Qanon" rabbit hole a few years before "Q" existed (the tropes have existed in right-wing circles for longer than the specific conspiracy theory has); part of my realization that it was wrong was noticing that the sorts of things I believed were promoted almost exclusively in places also rife with obvious racism, sexism, and antisemitism.
"you can help the redeemable extremists __know__ they're indulging in extremism by forcing them to go to fringe websites rather than allow them to stay on Twitter and Facebook as if nothing is wrong."
This is such a terrible idea. All this accomplishes is causing extremists to find echo chambers where they will never actually know what they're doing is wrong. It's much better to keep extremists in mainstream platforms so they can be called out and atleast informed that they are wrong. Your solution is totally backwards and accomplishes the opposite of what you're hoping for.
This is such a terrible idea. All this accomplishes is causing extremists to find echo chambers where they will never actually know what they're doing is wrong. It's much better to keep extremists in mainstream platforms so they can be called out and atleast informed that they are wrong. Your solution is totally backwards and accomplishes the opposite of what you're hoping for.
>> "you can help the redeemable extremists __know__ they're indulging in extremism by forcing them to go to fringe websites rather than allow them to stay on Twitter and Facebook as if nothing is wrong."
> This is such a terrible idea. All this accomplishes is causing extremists to find echo chambers where they will never actually know what they're doing is wrong. It's much better to keep extremists in mainstream platforms so they can be called out and atleast informed that they are wrong. Your solution is totally backwards and accomplishes the opposite of what you're hoping for.
It's not that simple:
1. It's totally believable that someone might follow a neo-Nazi on twitter, if the neo-Nazi avoids Nazi iconography and mainly tweets about Nazi-adjacent topics, but have second thoughts about joining an actual neo-Nazi website.
Not all extremists will seek out a fringe echo chamber. Some will, but others will not. The result is likely one where the most-extreme core gets separated from its recruitment opportunities, disrupting the first step in the recruitment funnel. That core may get more extreme in its echo chamber, but its overall movement could end up being smaller and weaker.
2. Counterintuitively, people tend to dig in to their existing beliefs when they're "called out." Also, I'm sure every neo-Nazi has been informed many, many times that they're wrong. Extremism is not a problem of lack of information.
> This is such a terrible idea. All this accomplishes is causing extremists to find echo chambers where they will never actually know what they're doing is wrong. It's much better to keep extremists in mainstream platforms so they can be called out and atleast informed that they are wrong. Your solution is totally backwards and accomplishes the opposite of what you're hoping for.
It's not that simple:
1. It's totally believable that someone might follow a neo-Nazi on twitter, if the neo-Nazi avoids Nazi iconography and mainly tweets about Nazi-adjacent topics, but have second thoughts about joining an actual neo-Nazi website.
Not all extremists will seek out a fringe echo chamber. Some will, but others will not. The result is likely one where the most-extreme core gets separated from its recruitment opportunities, disrupting the first step in the recruitment funnel. That core may get more extreme in its echo chamber, but its overall movement could end up being smaller and weaker.
2. Counterintuitively, people tend to dig in to their existing beliefs when they're "called out." Also, I'm sure every neo-Nazi has been informed many, many times that they're wrong. Extremism is not a problem of lack of information.
> That core may get more extreme in its echo chamber, but its overall movement could end up being smaller and weaker.
This is precisely the problem. That core will certainly get more extreme because there's no cross pollination between it and other more moderate groups.
I would rather have more people with less extreme views than fewer people with more extreme views, because it's much more likely the more extreme people are a greater danger to society than the less extreme people.
> Extremism is not a problem of lack of information.
True, but it's more complicated than that. Extremism almost always results when you disenfranchise or ostracize a community. It's much better to integrate it so there's crossflow of information and empathy still. Dehumanizing groups of people also dehumanizes yourself.
This is precisely the problem. That core will certainly get more extreme because there's no cross pollination between it and other more moderate groups.
I would rather have more people with less extreme views than fewer people with more extreme views, because it's much more likely the more extreme people are a greater danger to society than the less extreme people.
> Extremism is not a problem of lack of information.
True, but it's more complicated than that. Extremism almost always results when you disenfranchise or ostracize a community. It's much better to integrate it so there's crossflow of information and empathy still. Dehumanizing groups of people also dehumanizes yourself.
> I would rather have more people with less extreme views than fewer people with more extreme views, because it's much more likely the more extreme people are a greater danger to society than the less extreme people.
History proves otherwise. All wars, massacres, tyrannies required extreme views to become popularized enough to achieve momentum.
History proves otherwise. All wars, massacres, tyrannies required extreme views to become popularized enough to achieve momentum.
> This is precisely the problem. That core will certainly get more extreme because there's no cross pollination between it and other more moderate groups.
But the question is how much? I'm highly skeptical that "cross pollination" moderates hard-core neo-Nazis to any significant degree, for instance. They might get a little more extreme in an echo chamber, but I don't think it will be that much more.
In fact, I think the "cross pollination" mainly goes the other way, by spreading extremist ideas to moderates that are vulnerable to them. Let them spread enough, and they could even become normalized.
> I would rather have more people with less extreme views than fewer people with more extreme views, because it's much more likely the more extreme people are a greater danger to society than the less extreme people.
I think the better way of thinking about this is "total quantity of extremism." You're always going to have a hard core, so the question is more about how big will that core be, and how many adjacent supporters will it have.
Let's say you keep neo-Nazis on twitter, and that leads to a hard-core that is 10% less Nazi, on average, but that's also ten times larger. You now have a far more dangerous situation on your hands.
> True, but it's more complicated than that. Extremism almost always results when you disenfranchise or ostracize a community. It's much better to integrate it so there's crossflow of information and empathy still. Dehumanizing groups of people also dehumanizes yourself.
Maybe in some cases, but not others. For instance, neo-Nazis extremists weren't created by disenfranchising some kind of "moderate" natural neo-Nazi community.
But the question is how much? I'm highly skeptical that "cross pollination" moderates hard-core neo-Nazis to any significant degree, for instance. They might get a little more extreme in an echo chamber, but I don't think it will be that much more.
In fact, I think the "cross pollination" mainly goes the other way, by spreading extremist ideas to moderates that are vulnerable to them. Let them spread enough, and they could even become normalized.
> I would rather have more people with less extreme views than fewer people with more extreme views, because it's much more likely the more extreme people are a greater danger to society than the less extreme people.
I think the better way of thinking about this is "total quantity of extremism." You're always going to have a hard core, so the question is more about how big will that core be, and how many adjacent supporters will it have.
Let's say you keep neo-Nazis on twitter, and that leads to a hard-core that is 10% less Nazi, on average, but that's also ten times larger. You now have a far more dangerous situation on your hands.
> True, but it's more complicated than that. Extremism almost always results when you disenfranchise or ostracize a community. It's much better to integrate it so there's crossflow of information and empathy still. Dehumanizing groups of people also dehumanizes yourself.
Maybe in some cases, but not others. For instance, neo-Nazis extremists weren't created by disenfranchising some kind of "moderate" natural neo-Nazi community.
In practice, anyone on an extreme platform is also on the mainstream ones.
My reading from the outside is, the left needs to realize (I'm sure it applies to the right equally as well) that scolding people into guilt is not a viable approach to affect action or to change perceptions when you're dealing with adults.
Neither does boxing people into this, that and that category do any good. Like if all you want to do is dehumanize those guys so you can happily insult / hurt them without hurting your conscience, go ahead, that's choice.. you have different goals.. but remember that instinct that wants you to scream at this-this-this type of person is a confrontational approach that deep down falls in the pattern of, eliminating the other tribe.. if you choose to do something about it and what you do is your responsibility and problem.
I just think the solution should lie in : 1) dialog 2) laws
I think beyond those 2 lie some really wrong answers..
Neither does boxing people into this, that and that category do any good. Like if all you want to do is dehumanize those guys so you can happily insult / hurt them without hurting your conscience, go ahead, that's choice.. you have different goals.. but remember that instinct that wants you to scream at this-this-this type of person is a confrontational approach that deep down falls in the pattern of, eliminating the other tribe.. if you choose to do something about it and what you do is your responsibility and problem.
I just think the solution should lie in : 1) dialog 2) laws
I think beyond those 2 lie some really wrong answers..
I think the extremes, both left and right, have realized that their greatest enemy is not the other extreme, but the masses in between.
A group that has the numbers, with mild views that can dilute your message with reasonable doubt, challenge certain aspects of your extreme yet be broadly acceptable to a much wider audience including those tending towards your side – that's poision for an extremist.
Therefore, their solution to that is tribalism, polarization, and shaming for any hint of non-compliance with the extreme's dogma.
End result is that the vast majority of moderate people do not participate in debates on sensitive topics, leaving the field open for polarizing demagoguery. All that's left is to make more topics sensitive to get an advantage there too, and that's progressing very well too.
A group that has the numbers, with mild views that can dilute your message with reasonable doubt, challenge certain aspects of your extreme yet be broadly acceptable to a much wider audience including those tending towards your side – that's poision for an extremist.
Therefore, their solution to that is tribalism, polarization, and shaming for any hint of non-compliance with the extreme's dogma.
End result is that the vast majority of moderate people do not participate in debates on sensitive topics, leaving the field open for polarizing demagoguery. All that's left is to make more topics sensitive to get an advantage there too, and that's progressing very well too.
"I have almost reached the regrettable conclusion that the Negro's great stumbling block in his stride toward freedom is not the White Citizen's Counciler or the Ku Klux Klanner, but the white moderate, who is more devoted to ‘order’ than to justice; who prefers a negative peace which is the absence of tension to a positive peace which is the presence of justice; who constantly says: ‘I agree with you in the goal you seek, but I cannot agree with your methods of direct action’; who paternalistically believes he can set the timetable for another man's freedom; who lives by a mythical concept of time and who constantly advises the Negro to wait for a ‘more convenient season.’” - Dr. King, 1963
[deleted]
this might be false equivalence. People far on the left (except from some nas-bols; which I’ve never encountered in the wild) call them selfs anti-facists. It is clear who their greatest enemy is. In fact far left groups (like food not bombs, etc.) often engage in social programs called mutual aid where the goal is to spread propaganda through helping the masses.
> spread propaganda through helping the masses.
1%'er motorcycle clubs, mafia organizations and radical religious cults are notorious for doing this as well.
1%'er motorcycle clubs, mafia organizations and radical religious cults are notorious for doing this as well.
Again fails equivalence. Mutual aid is not causing anybody harm. In fact it is not mutual aid by definition if it does cause harm.
At the risk of entertaining the no true Scotsman:
A leftist that doesn’t empathize with the masses, is not a true leftist.
A leftist that doesn’t empathize with the masses, is not a true leftist.
There is no consistent conception of the masses to the left. Traditionally, there is the labor class and the capital class. In the modern left, oppressors and oppressed are typically determined by identity group, but the game is the same. To win the game of leftism, you better pray that you're in the "masses."
True. A Marxist will have a different conception of the masses from an anarchist (even though the intersection is usually pretty large). But I fail to see what that has to do with anything. There is no game of leftism. The goal is to free people from the tyranny of capitalism and fascism (marxists might emphasize the former while anarchists the latter).
Leftists generally accept rich folks sympathetic to the cause, even though they technically don’t belong to the masses. For example Marxists and anarchists alike generally accept Henry David Thoreau and Leo Tolstoy as leftists (even though the latter was born into great wealth), and leftists generally accept Dan Price (#DanPriceSeattle on twitter) even though he is a boss (i.e. not off the masses).
Leftists generally accept rich folks sympathetic to the cause, even though they technically don’t belong to the masses. For example Marxists and anarchists alike generally accept Henry David Thoreau and Leo Tolstoy as leftists (even though the latter was born into great wealth), and leftists generally accept Dan Price (#DanPriceSeattle on twitter) even though he is a boss (i.e. not off the masses).
It is not to free people, it is to free the abstract idea of people. This is how leftists are as tyrannical as everyone. They have a romantic idea of the poor which is not tied to their actual existence or wants, and act on it. Too often, it is just a way to morally justify their own wants or desires. Any evil can be justified if it helps a faceless mass of people.
> romantic idea of the poor
It is actually quite fun to read Dostoevsky’s Idiot with that in mind that Dostoevsky might have written Prince Myshkin (the Idiot) with Leo Tolstoy in mind. Dostoevsky was very much not a man of means, whereas Tolstoy literally came from a line of nobility. To Dostoevsky, Tolstoy’s talk of the impoverished must have sounded like he had no idea what he was talking about.
That being said, I do think that romanticism of the poor is a really old school mentality, maybe some boomers sometimes still engage in it, but I doubt that you’ll find contemporary leftists engaging in it. Today’s left is much more AOC and Greta Thunberg complaining about how shitty life is for the poor (with a substantial retweet history each backing up poor people calling for it).
It is actually quite fun to read Dostoevsky’s Idiot with that in mind that Dostoevsky might have written Prince Myshkin (the Idiot) with Leo Tolstoy in mind. Dostoevsky was very much not a man of means, whereas Tolstoy literally came from a line of nobility. To Dostoevsky, Tolstoy’s talk of the impoverished must have sounded like he had no idea what he was talking about.
That being said, I do think that romanticism of the poor is a really old school mentality, maybe some boomers sometimes still engage in it, but I doubt that you’ll find contemporary leftists engaging in it. Today’s left is much more AOC and Greta Thunberg complaining about how shitty life is for the poor (with a substantial retweet history each backing up poor people calling for it).
There is no game of leftism? The game is for the oppressed class to take power from the oppressor class. Who fits into which of those classes is a contentious issue, though as I said, more frequently predicated on identity than anything else.
Also, to be free of the "tyranny of capitalism and fascism," I hope that those are two different categories. Capitalism and fascism are near polar opposites.
It's also important to understand that leftism necessarily ushers in tyranny. It is impossible, not just in practice, but in theory, for leftism to be implemented without an authoritarian state. If you attempt to get around this constraint, it will only be by you failing to describe a state whose outcomes will fall within the objectives of leftism, or by describing an authoritarian state by any other name (syndicates, guilds, unions).
Also, to be free of the "tyranny of capitalism and fascism," I hope that those are two different categories. Capitalism and fascism are near polar opposites.
It's also important to understand that leftism necessarily ushers in tyranny. It is impossible, not just in practice, but in theory, for leftism to be implemented without an authoritarian state. If you attempt to get around this constraint, it will only be by you failing to describe a state whose outcomes will fall within the objectives of leftism, or by describing an authoritarian state by any other name (syndicates, guilds, unions).
Unfortunately it can be difficult to tell who empathizes with the masses and who is just pretending to in pursuit of power.
The two aren't mutually exclusive. Power is simply the capacity to influence the behavior of others, and in a democracy, it is leveraged to get anything done.
In the US today, you're a real dumb dumb if you try to attain power via a left platform. A handful of people did it (AOC, Omar, Taleib) but by far if you want a successful career you take a mainstream R or D position and just try to outdo everyone else in culture war takes. I'll point out that "the squad" is social democratic in nature, they aren't as far left as you can go by far.
A left position calls for redistribution of wealth and transfer of control of the means of production, which gets you attacked from nearly all establishment sides.
A left position calls for redistribution of wealth and transfer of control of the means of production, which gets you attacked from nearly all establishment sides.
The establishment isn't what it once was.
Obama turned out to be an establishment President (with bailouts, not prosecutions, for the architects of the housing bubble and crash) but he ran as an anti-establishment candidate.
Then, despite obviously being part of the establishment, Hillary tried to do the same, arguing that she as a woman she clearly wasn't part of the establishment ("Sen. Sanders is the only person who I think would characterize me, a woman running to be the first woman president, as exemplifying the establishment.")
She lost to Trump, who - despite being a billionaire white male - constantly attacked and was attacked by the establishment, in particular as a "populist", someone chosen by the people, not the establishment.
And until the DNC united behind Biden, Bernie was giving him a serious challenge, and Biden was relying on his anti-establishment rep with his "black firewall".
Meanwhile, Bloomberg was painted as the clueless establishment candidate and laughed out of the race.
A young politician (left or right) studying recent events would be smart to run away from the establishment, just as so many elder politicians have (while perhaps seeking establishment support in secret, and hoping not to be caught).
Obama turned out to be an establishment President (with bailouts, not prosecutions, for the architects of the housing bubble and crash) but he ran as an anti-establishment candidate.
Then, despite obviously being part of the establishment, Hillary tried to do the same, arguing that she as a woman she clearly wasn't part of the establishment ("Sen. Sanders is the only person who I think would characterize me, a woman running to be the first woman president, as exemplifying the establishment.")
She lost to Trump, who - despite being a billionaire white male - constantly attacked and was attacked by the establishment, in particular as a "populist", someone chosen by the people, not the establishment.
And until the DNC united behind Biden, Bernie was giving him a serious challenge, and Biden was relying on his anti-establishment rep with his "black firewall".
Meanwhile, Bloomberg was painted as the clueless establishment candidate and laughed out of the race.
A young politician (left or right) studying recent events would be smart to run away from the establishment, just as so many elder politicians have (while perhaps seeking establishment support in secret, and hoping not to be caught).
This is strongly undercut by "the DNC (i.e. the establishment) united behind Biden" who is currently POTUS instead of Bernie or Trump.
But facing enormous pressure from a younger generation that seems to be far to the left of Biden and was not happy with either Biden or Harris, but voted against Trump rather than for Biden.
And even with all Trump's failings as a person, it was a close election between the unpopular populist and the likeable establishment compromise. Is that evidence of establishment strength?
And even with all Trump's failings as a person, it was a close election between the unpopular populist and the likeable establishment compromise. Is that evidence of establishment strength?
Thats hard since sometimes the masses are fighting against being helped (because that would be socialism) while languishing in poverty.
Do they really have the right to commit suicide by policy, taking us with them via climate change?
It is realy hard to empathize with those.
Do they really have the right to commit suicide by policy, taking us with them via climate change?
It is realy hard to empathize with those.
> the masses are fighting against being helped
If you are looking for a clearler symptom that you don't empathize with them, there isn't any.
What is not a moral failing, by the way. But check your "Left" label, because it's probably wrong.
If you are looking for a clearler symptom that you don't empathize with them, there isn't any.
What is not a moral failing, by the way. But check your "Left" label, because it's probably wrong.
You can be Left without empathizing with people who want you dead. That's a pretty straightforward application of Paradox of Tolerance.
I know a certain Jesus Christ who would disagree with you. In seriousness though, visiting poor rural American during Trump is a really numbing experience. You see the people there flagging Trump signs everywhere while living in dirt poor conditions. It is hard not to emphasize with them even though they are calling for everything you are fighting against.
After all, the establishment has failed those people. The democratic party has severely failed them. Democracy it self has failed them. I know that really capitalism has failed them and they would find better answers under socialism then under Trump (after all Trump has failed them as well). But you must still understand where this is coming from. That is you must empathize with them, even though their views are wrong.
After all, the establishment has failed those people. The democratic party has severely failed them. Democracy it self has failed them. I know that really capitalism has failed them and they would find better answers under socialism then under Trump (after all Trump has failed them as well). But you must still understand where this is coming from. That is you must empathize with them, even though their views are wrong.
It's entirely your choice who you empathize with. If you don't act over your indifference, it doesn't harm anybody. It's impossible to empathize with everybody.
The criticism people are raising is about a kind of hypocrisy, even when lying is entirely to oneself.
The criticism people are raising is about a kind of hypocrisy, even when lying is entirely to oneself.
Funny, the Berlin Wall was called antifascist - Antifaschistischer Schutzwall
Calling yourself anti-fascist does not make you immune to totalitarianism, tribalism and othering any more than, to borrow an analogy, writing "cool" on a box makes it a freezer.
edit: Oy! The downvote is not for disagreeing!
edit: Oy! The downvote is not for disagreeing!
Downvoting for disagreement is ok on HN; always has been.
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16131314
What's not ok is going on about downvotes. It never does any good, and it makes for boring reading.
https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16131314
What's not ok is going on about downvotes. It never does any good, and it makes for boring reading.
https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
Well alrighty then.
I feel like that works better for factual, technical claims than political ones though. As another website says, "No technology is discussed."
I feel like that works better for factual, technical claims than political ones though. As another website says, "No technology is discussed."
Im sure the foot soldiers of Stalin, Mao and Pol Pot had that exact same purity of thought, the exact same infallible self-belief and the exact same absolute certainty they were on the right side of history.
Maoists and National Bolsheviks are a really small minority inside leftist circles, you will have to look for a long time before you encounter one in the wild. And when you do, and if you are a leftist, you will most likely shun them. Racism is usually not tolerated by the left.
Varg is pretty much a textbook NazBol. Thing is people won't stop tripping over each other to label him far-right/Nazi before hearing anything he says. Pretty likely this is happening to most other of their ilk as well.
In the five years or so I spent hanging out with Socialist Party USA folks, I met loads of Maoists, including a former party chairman. There were a lot who were Trotskyists out in the open and Maoists if you got them drunk enough to talk freely.
In the five years or so I spent hanging out with Socialist Party USA folks, I met loads of Maoists, including a former party chairman. There were a lot who were Trotskyists out in the open and Maoists if you got them drunk enough to talk freely.
Reminds me of some test I read in a book (can't remember which one).
A teacher asks some student to stand up and raise his hands before him. The teacher stands in front of him and does the same, touching the students hands. Then the teacher starts pushing, and the student uses force to stay in place. Then the teacher uses more force, and so does the student.
Finally the teacher asks: "Whay are you pushing me?". "Because you were pushing me!"
This is exactly what is happening here. You cannot expect people to give in once you start pushing.
A teacher asks some student to stand up and raise his hands before him. The teacher stands in front of him and does the same, touching the students hands. Then the teacher starts pushing, and the student uses force to stay in place. Then the teacher uses more force, and so does the student.
Finally the teacher asks: "Whay are you pushing me?". "Because you were pushing me!"
This is exactly what is happening here. You cannot expect people to give in once you start pushing.
There's a common idea I see sometimes in discussions about weapons of war - would it be good if everyone only made defensive technologies? Say no to fighters and bombers, but yes to surface-to-air missiles? Say no to guns, but yes to anti-ballistic protection?
But to this, the answer is: every defensive technology can be used as an offensive weapon. I can pack my SAM turrent on a truck and drive all the way to your city, and start shooting down your airliners, and you won't be able to do anything about it, because whatever guns you scavenge from a museum mean nothing to my anti-ballistic vest.
This is what I think of when I see people who purposefully inject themselves into communities, feign offense and call society for help. Using means of protection as weapons.
But to this, the answer is: every defensive technology can be used as an offensive weapon. I can pack my SAM turrent on a truck and drive all the way to your city, and start shooting down your airliners, and you won't be able to do anything about it, because whatever guns you scavenge from a museum mean nothing to my anti-ballistic vest.
This is what I think of when I see people who purposefully inject themselves into communities, feign offense and call society for help. Using means of protection as weapons.
> ... You cannot expect people to give in once you start pushing.
On the contrary, Chinese martial arts (as well as physical exercise more generally, as with Tai chi chu'an) use the pushing hands exercise to teach how to skillfully yield and redirect the other party's power. It's viewed as foundational to the entire discipline.
On the contrary, Chinese martial arts (as well as physical exercise more generally, as with Tai chi chu'an) use the pushing hands exercise to teach how to skillfully yield and redirect the other party's power. It's viewed as foundational to the entire discipline.
Martial arts is not politics, and the western mindset is to respond with equal or greater force. In fact the military doctrine is to respond with disproportional force. Yielding may be the smarter thing to do, but that's would be seen as weak in most of the world (including, I suspect, China).
This is exactly what is happening here. You cannot expect people to give in once you start pushing.
There was an episode of STTNG that had a profound effect on me as a kid as a metaphor for confrontation, where the crew of a destroyed ship kept saying "more power to the shields" when the "shields" were actually causing the problem.
There was an episode of STTNG that had a profound effect on me as a kid as a metaphor for confrontation, where the crew of a destroyed ship kept saying "more power to the shields" when the "shields" were actually causing the problem.
So in that case, the party with authority and power asked the other to do something. Then the powerful party started pushing and then complained about counter pressure. Sounds familiar.
> "My reading from the outside is, the left needs to realize (I'm sure it applies to the right equally as well)..."
> "Neither does boxing people into this, that and that category do any good."
a good first start is to follow the latter maxim when discussing the former issue, particularly when it comes to issues of power and influence. you're already lost when you speak in terms of left and right. those are distractions from the real coercions impinging on our freedoms daily, from the desire to stagnate and wield (more) power. you need to pierce that construct, disregard it entirely, to understand and orient your resistance and dissatisfaction toward the rightful source.
two people chosen randomly are going to be vastly more similar than different, no matter where on the artificially-constructed political spectrum they are. this is how we know it's constructed and not real.
the left-right dichotomy, like all dichotomies, collapses our thinking into detrimental zero-sum tribalism pointing us against each other rather toward the real source of conflict, power-wielders, creating an artificial, seemingly-insurmountable gulf, that fractures the populace and shields power further from the will of the people (that's us).
a power structure can do awesome things, and sometimes we need it to do those awesome (positive) things temporarily, but stagnated, amassed power can do a lot of awesome, negatively-externalizing, and self-serving things not in the interest of the many (especially the future many).
the way to think about power is as flows, not stores, and especially not as individuals, which is where our primitive brains betray us constantly. to harness power, we must allow it to temporarily coalesce when and where it will do good, and dissapate steadily so as not to stagnate, and corrupt, in any one set of hands.
> "Neither does boxing people into this, that and that category do any good."
a good first start is to follow the latter maxim when discussing the former issue, particularly when it comes to issues of power and influence. you're already lost when you speak in terms of left and right. those are distractions from the real coercions impinging on our freedoms daily, from the desire to stagnate and wield (more) power. you need to pierce that construct, disregard it entirely, to understand and orient your resistance and dissatisfaction toward the rightful source.
two people chosen randomly are going to be vastly more similar than different, no matter where on the artificially-constructed political spectrum they are. this is how we know it's constructed and not real.
the left-right dichotomy, like all dichotomies, collapses our thinking into detrimental zero-sum tribalism pointing us against each other rather toward the real source of conflict, power-wielders, creating an artificial, seemingly-insurmountable gulf, that fractures the populace and shields power further from the will of the people (that's us).
a power structure can do awesome things, and sometimes we need it to do those awesome (positive) things temporarily, but stagnated, amassed power can do a lot of awesome, negatively-externalizing, and self-serving things not in the interest of the many (especially the future many).
the way to think about power is as flows, not stores, and especially not as individuals, which is where our primitive brains betray us constantly. to harness power, we must allow it to temporarily coalesce when and where it will do good, and dissapate steadily so as not to stagnate, and corrupt, in any one set of hands.
Every society exerts social pressure in the form of norms and shaming. People are only sensitive to the shaming they won't accept, which always seems to come from the people they disagree with, and they are completely blind to the shaming that goes on in their in-group.
Interesting thought, it would seem to follow that those less effected by social shaming might find themselves at a evolutionary advantage over those that are greatly effected. For example those who ignore prohibitions on premarital sex may have more children overall.
Except that society has a mechanism for for enforcing social norms: laws. Premarital sex might seem like an evolutionary advantage, unless you live in a society that murders you for such activities.
You are right though, which is why high-status in a society are "allowed" to break social norms with no consequence.
You are right though, which is why high-status in a society are "allowed" to break social norms with no consequence.
You can pass all the laws you want but if they aren’t backed up by a general consensus in the society they will be defied at every turn.
Counter-point: authoritarian regimes.
The general consensus in such countries is that the laws are terrible and oppressive, the the brutal enforcement largely ensures compliance.
The general consensus in such countries is that the laws are terrible and oppressive, the the brutal enforcement largely ensures compliance.
Brutal enforcement is quite distinct from legislation so much so that the legislation becomes unnecessary since such practices often take the form of extrajudicial conviction and punishment at the hands of police or the military.
Yea, a recent example of environmental shaming that worked was the reduction of littering from cars. Roadside cleanup helped, but tossing stuff out of car windows used to be significantly more common.
What’s notable is no organization benefited from littering so there is little pushback on the subject, just millions of people behaving slightly differently.
What’s notable is no organization benefited from littering so there is little pushback on the subject, just millions of people behaving slightly differently.
The tickets for littering are huge.
Laws rarely change so you can track the impact of various campaigns over time. Over time they have significantly changed people’s behavior.
So sure in some states the fines are huge, but New Mexico’s $50 fine is a minimal risk.
So sure in some states the fines are huge, but New Mexico’s $50 fine is a minimal risk.
I believe the "Don't mess with Texas" advertising campaign was actually significantly more helpful than the ticket cost. If you think about it, people usually only know about the cost if they get fined but people know that it is frowned upon to litter through an advertising campaign.
After all, the people in and around your car can judge and shame you while you can only get a ticket if there's a cop around.
After all, the people in and around your car can judge and shame you while you can only get a ticket if there's a cop around.
And exceedingly rare.
[deleted]
>Every society exerts social pressure in the form of norms and shaming.
HN crowd has a definite knack for packing heaps of erroneous thinking (or perhaps deliberate gaslighting) into compact sentences like these.
Deplatforming is a tactic. One specifically designed to exert pressure in a direction not supported by the societal consensus. And yet in nearly every thread about it here, there are highly upvoted comments that pretend deplatforming is a mechanism for enforcing societal consensus.
HN crowd has a definite knack for packing heaps of erroneous thinking (or perhaps deliberate gaslighting) into compact sentences like these.
Deplatforming is a tactic. One specifically designed to exert pressure in a direction not supported by the societal consensus. And yet in nearly every thread about it here, there are highly upvoted comments that pretend deplatforming is a mechanism for enforcing societal consensus.
Please don't add supercilious dissing on top of the flamewar this thread has already degenerated into.
https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
Here's a deplatforming example that is very much in line with societal consensus: when Daech was recruiting teenagers and young adults from Europe, there was a constant struggle, by both platforms and law enforcement, to systematically de-platform the accounts pushing their propaganda.
It is likely that had this propaganda been allowed to run unchecked, there would have been even more people recruited by Daech to go fight in Syria (or get married off), and to attack random civilians in the name of this ideology. Most attacks, if not all, were perpetrated by people who had in large part radicalized online, away from extremist mosques where they might have been more easily detected.
That being said, I don't believe censorship or de-platforming should ever be used outside of preventing the spread of propaganda that results in actual attacks on people. Anything short of this is just talk.
It is likely that had this propaganda been allowed to run unchecked, there would have been even more people recruited by Daech to go fight in Syria (or get married off), and to attack random civilians in the name of this ideology. Most attacks, if not all, were perpetrated by people who had in large part radicalized online, away from extremist mosques where they might have been more easily detected.
That being said, I don't believe censorship or de-platforming should ever be used outside of preventing the spread of propaganda that results in actual attacks on people. Anything short of this is just talk.
It's very rude to say people are "pretending" just because you don't agree with their beliefs.
It absolutely does work. A little bit, at first, when you have broad consensus backing you - but it does work. People will begrudgingly change their behavior for relatively minor things, and the change in the use rate of racial epithets in public reflects that.
The problem is that A) this process is more useful for advancing within the ideological block than for advancing the ideology's goals, and B) there's a "Laffer Curve" of sorts for paying "moral taxes" in following behavioral norms. The internal dynamics of a movement is going to set the level by true-believer dynamics where outrageously high demands are acceded to, while the general public is going to respond to that level of demand of "well, if you think I'm a bad person for saying 'Latino" instead of 'Latinx', that's your problem".
The problem is that A) this process is more useful for advancing within the ideological block than for advancing the ideology's goals, and B) there's a "Laffer Curve" of sorts for paying "moral taxes" in following behavioral norms. The internal dynamics of a movement is going to set the level by true-believer dynamics where outrageously high demands are acceded to, while the general public is going to respond to that level of demand of "well, if you think I'm a bad person for saying 'Latino" instead of 'Latinx', that's your problem".
> It absolutely does work. A little bit, at first, when you have broad consensus backing you - but it does work. People will begrudgingly change their behavior for relatively minor things, and the change in the use rate of racial epithets in public reflects that.
The only change is that you now have a bunch of people who are afraid to use a handful of naughty words in public because they might lose their job over it. You haven't changed any minds or hearts, you've just moved the conversations into private rooms. You can't end racism by just shaming people for using the n-word. It's arguably just as bad now as it was during the Civil Rights era, but you can't easily see it anymore because it's mostly kept within "friendly" company.
The only change is that you now have a bunch of people who are afraid to use a handful of naughty words in public because they might lose their job over it. You haven't changed any minds or hearts, you've just moved the conversations into private rooms. You can't end racism by just shaming people for using the n-word. It's arguably just as bad now as it was during the Civil Rights era, but you can't easily see it anymore because it's mostly kept within "friendly" company.
> The only change is that you now have a bunch of people who are afraid to use a handful of naughty words in public because they might lose their job over it.
That's not the "only change". If were, that's still a feature, not a bug. It means that real consequences are possible, and that those possible consequences are widely understood.
One is never going to change the mind and heart of a deeply racist person, but one can help bend the overall curve of intolerance over time.
That's not the "only change". If were, that's still a feature, not a bug. It means that real consequences are possible, and that those possible consequences are widely understood.
One is never going to change the mind and heart of a deeply racist person, but one can help bend the overall curve of intolerance over time.
How do you know that you're actually "bending the curve" and not just driving it underground?
Because you can measure by harm caused, not just by thoughts thought.
For example, I posit (without proof) that, because we have effectively banned hateful racist speech in most standard professional workplaces, the people who work in those environments and used to suffer harm (through being forced to work in an openly hostile environment to them, through being denied advancement or equitable compensation, through the mental stress of being the target of hate speech, etc.), that those people suffer less harm today then they used to.
- Is it perfect now? No.
- Can people still be secretly denied promotions because of racism? Absolutely.
- Does it happen less frequently in the aggregate than it used to 40-50 years ago? Almost certainly, though I base this claim on common sense for now (don't have scientific sources handy but I'm sure I can find some).
For example, I posit (without proof) that, because we have effectively banned hateful racist speech in most standard professional workplaces, the people who work in those environments and used to suffer harm (through being forced to work in an openly hostile environment to them, through being denied advancement or equitable compensation, through the mental stress of being the target of hate speech, etc.), that those people suffer less harm today then they used to.
- Is it perfect now? No.
- Can people still be secretly denied promotions because of racism? Absolutely.
- Does it happen less frequently in the aggregate than it used to 40-50 years ago? Almost certainly, though I base this claim on common sense for now (don't have scientific sources handy but I'm sure I can find some).
Let's see...
My grandparents used the N word freely.
My parents used the C word on occasion when they were younger and grew out of it.
I don't use either, and neither do my kids.
Generations don't exist in bubbles. They are shaped and influenced by popular society just as much as their local communities.
30 years ago, the AIDS epidemic was a punchline.
17 years ago, you couldn't be openly gay in the military and the majority of people in the US supported it.
Now, most people are in favor of gay marriage and a sizeable percentage are fine with trans rights.
The best part about bigots is that they are mortal.
My grandparents used the N word freely.
My parents used the C word on occasion when they were younger and grew out of it.
I don't use either, and neither do my kids.
Generations don't exist in bubbles. They are shaped and influenced by popular society just as much as their local communities.
30 years ago, the AIDS epidemic was a punchline.
17 years ago, you couldn't be openly gay in the military and the majority of people in the US supported it.
Now, most people are in favor of gay marriage and a sizeable percentage are fine with trans rights.
The best part about bigots is that they are mortal.
They're mortal, but that's cold comfort when they're oppressing you now.
And they cling to power. The party that opposed gay marriage now controls 67% of the voting power on the court that legalized it. If that case came up again today, it would almost certainly go the other way. And they may, in fact, find ways to re-litigate it.
Even when the majority of that party switched to be in favor if it, they continue to vote for leadership who opposed it. Laws against trans rights are being enshrined in law literally as we speak, and it will take a very long time to scrub them off the books.
They're mortal, but I take no joy in that. They have disproportionate power, and as it dims, they use it harder and harder.
And they cling to power. The party that opposed gay marriage now controls 67% of the voting power on the court that legalized it. If that case came up again today, it would almost certainly go the other way. And they may, in fact, find ways to re-litigate it.
Even when the majority of that party switched to be in favor if it, they continue to vote for leadership who opposed it. Laws against trans rights are being enshrined in law literally as we speak, and it will take a very long time to scrub them off the books.
They're mortal, but I take no joy in that. They have disproportionate power, and as it dims, they use it harder and harder.
I am not sure your example holds: I have no use for racist terms, thus I don't use them.
When you elevate yourself above a group of people there is no option for dialog, because engaging in dialog would mean that you view those people as equals.
Maybe they're trying to force a violent response from the right, so they can use the power of the state to crush them?
My reading from the outside is, the left needs to realize (I'm sure it applies to the right equally as well) that scolding people into guilt is not a viable approach to affect action or to change perceptions when you're dealing with adults.
This seems manifestly false. A lot of adult behavior can be changed by scolding, a lot of society runs on scolding.
I'm a pretty rational and strongly opinionated person. You won't change my opinions with scolding. But if someone says "don't talk so loud, you'll wake the baby", well, you can certainly change my behavior. But even more, a lot of people do not operate at anywhere near this the level of rationality and a wider area of their behavior can be changed by scolding. Which is to say the population of fully adult humans is a lot less than the population of humans above the age of majority.
And sure, you can't control everything with scolding, you can't replace the police and the army with scolding but scolding, peer (and non-peer) pressure, etc is a tool in the hands of all the different incarnation of "society".
This seems manifestly false. A lot of adult behavior can be changed by scolding, a lot of society runs on scolding.
I'm a pretty rational and strongly opinionated person. You won't change my opinions with scolding. But if someone says "don't talk so loud, you'll wake the baby", well, you can certainly change my behavior. But even more, a lot of people do not operate at anywhere near this the level of rationality and a wider area of their behavior can be changed by scolding. Which is to say the population of fully adult humans is a lot less than the population of humans above the age of majority.
And sure, you can't control everything with scolding, you can't replace the police and the army with scolding but scolding, peer (and non-peer) pressure, etc is a tool in the hands of all the different incarnation of "society".
Certainly people get all angsty about being scolded. If it were being ignored, they wouldn't talk about it so much.
I don't think anyone really expects to convince racists, sexists, homophobic, rapey, violent, narcissist to change their ways. Ignoring them is obviously bad so there's nothing left to do but to try and make sure their, technically legal, but clearly nefarious, behavior doesn't go unnoticed at every opportunity.
Not only would they disagree with you, but their strategy actually works. Leftists, "wokeness", and social justice wouldn't be the hot topics they've been if the strategy of leftists weren't effective.
In terms of "adults", they are few and far between. There will always be biological adults, but so many adults are emotionally stunted that it's difficult for me to give them the title. Just as domestically raised cats are more child-like than cats that have spent their lives on the streets, the average life of an adult in the west is replete with comfort and novelty so as to keep them from building maturity and character. This makes them incredibly easy to be shamed into doing whatever is considered acceptable by the society they're in.
In terms of "adults", they are few and far between. There will always be biological adults, but so many adults are emotionally stunted that it's difficult for me to give them the title. Just as domestically raised cats are more child-like than cats that have spent their lives on the streets, the average life of an adult in the west is replete with comfort and novelty so as to keep them from building maturity and character. This makes them incredibly easy to be shamed into doing whatever is considered acceptable by the society they're in.
> Not only would they disagree with you, but their strategy actually works. Leftists, "wokeness", and social justice wouldn't be the hot topics they've been if the strategy of leftists weren't effective.
Is the goal of social justice movements just to be hot topics? Your statement makes it seem like success is measured by the amount of retweets or something. Clearly that can't be true, but if global fascism and ethnic nationalism is on the rise, what actual victories can this strategy claim to have won?
In general I think there has been progress, but it's all come from other corners: economics, regulatory reforms, art, and so on. Other than getting attention, are there any specific things you're thinking of when you say this strategy has been effective?
Is the goal of social justice movements just to be hot topics? Your statement makes it seem like success is measured by the amount of retweets or something. Clearly that can't be true, but if global fascism and ethnic nationalism is on the rise, what actual victories can this strategy claim to have won?
In general I think there has been progress, but it's all come from other corners: economics, regulatory reforms, art, and so on. Other than getting attention, are there any specific things you're thinking of when you say this strategy has been effective?
I think the current primary strategy is to destabilize Western liberalism. Every tenet of liberalism is actively under attack, and successfully so.
Individualism? Long gone, the name of the game is collectivism and your identity groups are everything.
Color blindness? It's officially considered to be an outdated, laughable mode of thinking. If your identity collective is paramount, how can you be blind to the parameter by which we should first be characterizing you by?
Freedom of speech? Muh freeze peach. This is now a dog whistle value for hate speech. Freedom of speech just means freedom for the identity groups in oppressive positions.
Rule of law? The application of the law should, of course, not be universal. It should be applied with context, with the context being...you guessed it...your identity group.
Objectivity? Facts? Reason? Tools of the colonialists in order to snuff out alternative modes of thinking. Any claim at truth is simply done within the context of the identity group.
If you don't think the left has succeeded in this objective, I don't know what planet you're living on. As a liberal, I can hardly communicate with any of my peers within the framework that has been foundational to Western civilization.
Individualism? Long gone, the name of the game is collectivism and your identity groups are everything.
Color blindness? It's officially considered to be an outdated, laughable mode of thinking. If your identity collective is paramount, how can you be blind to the parameter by which we should first be characterizing you by?
Freedom of speech? Muh freeze peach. This is now a dog whistle value for hate speech. Freedom of speech just means freedom for the identity groups in oppressive positions.
Rule of law? The application of the law should, of course, not be universal. It should be applied with context, with the context being...you guessed it...your identity group.
Objectivity? Facts? Reason? Tools of the colonialists in order to snuff out alternative modes of thinking. Any claim at truth is simply done within the context of the identity group.
If you don't think the left has succeeded in this objective, I don't know what planet you're living on. As a liberal, I can hardly communicate with any of my peers within the framework that has been foundational to Western civilization.
"Individualism" was never really implemented as "western" value; it was only ever a catch-phrase to defend the status quo by insisting those at the top "earned the right" to be there.
"Color blindness" likewise has mostly been used to argue that those on the bottom of society deserve to be there; (again) preserving the status quo. I.E. shutting down discussion by labeling racism a "solved problem".
"Freedom of speech" complaints most often come from those claiming to be "censored" because they are no longer being given a megaphone.
"Rule of law" is used to prevent analysis of those laws by, among other things, demonizing any discussion of those laws' motivations, or the cultural context in which they are enforced.
"Objectivity, Facts, and Reason" are used as buzzwords, often by those who know they aren't actually on their side, because
1) everyone knows they are good, and so claiming to already possess them is convincing rhetoric,
2) painting your opponents as "rejecting" them is also persuasive rhetoric, especially to your uninformed audience.
Claiming that people are actually demonizing them is a mischaracterization.
"Color blindness" likewise has mostly been used to argue that those on the bottom of society deserve to be there; (again) preserving the status quo. I.E. shutting down discussion by labeling racism a "solved problem".
"Freedom of speech" complaints most often come from those claiming to be "censored" because they are no longer being given a megaphone.
"Rule of law" is used to prevent analysis of those laws by, among other things, demonizing any discussion of those laws' motivations, or the cultural context in which they are enforced.
"Objectivity, Facts, and Reason" are used as buzzwords, often by those who know they aren't actually on their side, because
1) everyone knows they are good, and so claiming to already possess them is convincing rhetoric,
2) painting your opponents as "rejecting" them is also persuasive rhetoric, especially to your uninformed audience.
Claiming that people are actually demonizing them is a mischaracterization.
None of these were actually faithfully followed, and they were indeed used as excuses. But they used to be viewed as ideals to work toward. Now there are circles where they are _only_ seen as excuses, and they really have been demonized.
You could make that case, but I do think that they ceased to be "ideals to work toward" before people started recognizing them as such. I.E. it was only after "colorblindness" advocates started using the term to shut down discussions of issues facing minorities that people started calling out "colorblind" rhetoric as disingenuous.
One more observation. The choice of words in "diversity equity inclusion" is telling. DEI is god in Latin. In good old times, the ruling class had the Church with its inquisition and heresy to control the crowd, when the neutral laws didn't work. Today you can shout "I'm a heretic and I don't believe in god" and nobody would budge, so the ruling class had to invent something else. Not long ago it was the abstract communism and terrorism, but even these two words don't instill fear in masses today. So the ruling class has come up with this DEI - the new awkward god for the masses, and racism being the new heresy. But given how convoluted and laughable this ideology is, I bet it won't stick for even ten years. I'm really curious what will be next.
Someone here has posted a link to the Herman-Chomsky propaganda model. A quote from it: "So I think when we talked about the "fifth filter" we should have brought in all this stuff -- the way artificial fears are created with a dual purpose... partly to get rid of people you don't like but partly to frighten the rest. Because if people are frightened, they will accept authority."
Someone here has posted a link to the Herman-Chomsky propaganda model. A quote from it: "So I think when we talked about the "fifth filter" we should have brought in all this stuff -- the way artificial fears are created with a dual purpose... partly to get rid of people you don't like but partly to frighten the rest. Because if people are frightened, they will accept authority."
Western liberal democracy is collapsing because the right wing reactionaries were right about diversity destroying society, but their mistake was attempting to focus on things like racial and religious diversity. Diversity of ideas is not sustainable.
Now we can see multiple “factions” each with different ideas about the direction to take society with many of these ideas being excluding of or outright hostile to a different faction. So the solution? You have to kill them before they kill you (not in a literal sense, or at least not yet). Some of these factions will band with others (see right-libertarians typically siding with reactionaries and the progressive adoption of various leftist ideas) though it will be interesting to see what happens there when whichever group comes out on top.
Now we can see multiple “factions” each with different ideas about the direction to take society with many of these ideas being excluding of or outright hostile to a different faction. So the solution? You have to kill them before they kill you (not in a literal sense, or at least not yet). Some of these factions will band with others (see right-libertarians typically siding with reactionaries and the progressive adoption of various leftist ideas) though it will be interesting to see what happens there when whichever group comes out on top.
> Is the goal of social justice movements just to be hot topics?
I'm not sure I understand precisely what you're getting at but, for the record, anyone reading this should understand that I am not suggesting that hot topics are the goal of social justice.
In fact, I wasn't even making a value judgement of left wing causes in general, but people seem to always take the word "leftists" as a pejorative. All I'm saying is that leftist political strategies have been successful in that, on any given day, I can tune in to any given medium and count on trans rights, BLM, UBI, social equity, anti-racism, and so forth being a topic of conversation. This wasn't nearly as true before the current wave of leftism gained steam.
I'm not sure I understand precisely what you're getting at but, for the record, anyone reading this should understand that I am not suggesting that hot topics are the goal of social justice.
In fact, I wasn't even making a value judgement of left wing causes in general, but people seem to always take the word "leftists" as a pejorative. All I'm saying is that leftist political strategies have been successful in that, on any given day, I can tune in to any given medium and count on trans rights, BLM, UBI, social equity, anti-racism, and so forth being a topic of conversation. This wasn't nearly as true before the current wave of leftism gained steam.
> I am not suggesting that hot topics are the goal of social justice.
"their strategy actually works." implies that their strategy accompishes their goals.
"Leftists, "wokeness", and social justice wouldn't be the hot topics they've been if the strategy of leftists weren't effective." impies that hot topics are what their strategy accompished.
The transitive property between "goals" == "what strategy accompished" == "hot topics" is at least pretty clearly implied there.
"their strategy actually works." implies that their strategy accompishes their goals.
"Leftists, "wokeness", and social justice wouldn't be the hot topics they've been if the strategy of leftists weren't effective." impies that hot topics are what their strategy accompished.
The transitive property between "goals" == "what strategy accompished" == "hot topics" is at least pretty clearly implied there.
Their strategies may “work” in the short-term but I think short-term thinking is really damaging the long-term progress for the US political sphere. The reason the founders decided to emphatically form the “United States” is because we are stronger working together than as factions or tribes.
> we are stronger working together than as factions or tribes.
"We are stronger working together" is what a tribe is.
"We are stronger working together" is what a tribe is.
You might have to define “works”.
There was a raid on the capitol. Racial tension is at its highest point in decades. Domestic terrorism is on the rise.
There was a raid on the capitol. Racial tension is at its highest point in decades. Domestic terrorism is on the rise.
I hesitate to respond to this because I've been scolded by dang whenever I make political comments about specific groups, so I'll have to speak very generically. I will say that political movements can be either ambivalent towards or in support of destabilization of the current regime, even if that means doing things that superficially appear to be counter to their goals, so long as their politics are normalized and even chosen by the information brokers.
I make the distinction between anti-racism and anti-racist. If you're anti-racism, you want to reduce racism and that involves talking to people who are racist to fix the problem. If you're anti-racist, you just want to beat someone up and use racism as an excuse.
The first is actually the fabric that modern society relies upon.
The second is what you are doing in your post.
The second is what you are doing in your post.
While shaming and scolding might be overused, it's a legitimate tool in some cases. The problem is that a lot of sjw are punching down while telling themselves they are punching up because the person is white.
How often did I end up in a room full of urban, university educated people looking down on the white rural common folks.
The common people are not always common by choice. It's not necessarily by choice that they can't follow wonkish academic stories about the history of race to understand modern issues. It's not necessarily by choice that they can't see all the shades of gray of advanced morality and sort out complex issues about gender and race. These are the type of people that need to see a moral guide every week just to follow a simple morality where they can't process much beyond stereotypes.
The best AIs out there are not able to simulate advanced empathy. It is highly complex and involves multilevel recursive counterfactual meta-cognitive logic (https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/K4eDzqS2rbcBDsCLZ/unrolling-...). Given the level of complexity, I don't expect everyone to be able to intuitively get it.
A lot of people are intellectually underprivileged and too often, sjw like to scorn and mock them for their handicap.
The way I see it, Trumpism is made of an evil right wing elite that has managed to capture a large swath of simple minded folks party because these simple folks were pushed away from more reasonable political affiliation.
Populism doesn't have to be negative. The US constitution starts with We the People, not We the Scholars. Yes populism means unsophisticated views but these could be aligned with reasonable policy as much as right wing policy if the left didn't show so much contempt for the intellectually and morally disadvantaged. Democracy means you need unsophisticated people to vote with you to win elections.
How often did I end up in a room full of urban, university educated people looking down on the white rural common folks.
The common people are not always common by choice. It's not necessarily by choice that they can't follow wonkish academic stories about the history of race to understand modern issues. It's not necessarily by choice that they can't see all the shades of gray of advanced morality and sort out complex issues about gender and race. These are the type of people that need to see a moral guide every week just to follow a simple morality where they can't process much beyond stereotypes.
The best AIs out there are not able to simulate advanced empathy. It is highly complex and involves multilevel recursive counterfactual meta-cognitive logic (https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/K4eDzqS2rbcBDsCLZ/unrolling-...). Given the level of complexity, I don't expect everyone to be able to intuitively get it.
A lot of people are intellectually underprivileged and too often, sjw like to scorn and mock them for their handicap.
The way I see it, Trumpism is made of an evil right wing elite that has managed to capture a large swath of simple minded folks party because these simple folks were pushed away from more reasonable political affiliation.
Populism doesn't have to be negative. The US constitution starts with We the People, not We the Scholars. Yes populism means unsophisticated views but these could be aligned with reasonable policy as much as right wing policy if the left didn't show so much contempt for the intellectually and morally disadvantaged. Democracy means you need unsophisticated people to vote with you to win elections.
Do you know the history of jaywalking? Shaming works.
But telling people they shouldn’t insult and denigrate people for immutable physical characteristics is not shaming them, but if it is that’s a weird aspect of the interaction to focus on.
But telling people they shouldn’t insult and denigrate people for immutable physical characteristics is not shaming them, but if it is that’s a weird aspect of the interaction to focus on.
How politically correct does the left need to be? Especially after the "deplorables" gaffe, the left has bent over backwards to avoid appearing to be condescending towards rank and file right-wingers.
And it's ultimately hopeless. No matter how hard we try, someone on the left will scold. Oops.
And it's ultimately hopeless. No matter how hard we try, someone on the left will scold. Oops.
hef19898(3)
The winning approach is obviously in waiting for the other side to die off; the left is currently the majority, and the right is, on average, old.
In this regard, it's absolutely a "viable approach": By making it low-status to be right-wing, or even by not carrying right-wing views on popular private platforms, it makes the right-wing destined to lose out somewhere along the line simply due to the youth not wanting to associate with them.
It's a waiting game above anything, and on a long enough scale it looks like the winner is clear here, for better or worse.
In this regard, it's absolutely a "viable approach": By making it low-status to be right-wing, or even by not carrying right-wing views on popular private platforms, it makes the right-wing destined to lose out somewhere along the line simply due to the youth not wanting to associate with them.
It's a waiting game above anything, and on a long enough scale it looks like the winner is clear here, for better or worse.
The weird problem with this strategy is that there's a number of people who become more conservative, for whatever reason, as they get older.
The generation that comprised the hippies are now in their 80s. Mitch McConnell would have been in that generation.
So while the current crop of conservatives are dying off, they are being replaced by new members.
The generation that comprised the hippies are now in their 80s. Mitch McConnell would have been in that generation.
So while the current crop of conservatives are dying off, they are being replaced by new members.
It's not enough to make up the gap, though. Further, hippies rarely voted, and weren't the majority or even close to the majority of their generation.
It's typically because they get wealthier as they get older. I'm not expecting millennials and gen-X to get more conservative. Zoomers, maybe.
> "The winning approach is obviously in waiting for the other side to die off..."
Seems doubtful. Rural and poor areas remain strongholds for conservatism and that seems unlikely to change. The urban left may increasingly outnumber rural conservatives but that doesn't necessarily give them more power thanks to the way that the electoral system and government in the United States is structured.
Seems doubtful. Rural and poor areas remain strongholds for conservatism and that seems unlikely to change. The urban left may increasingly outnumber rural conservatives but that doesn't necessarily give them more power thanks to the way that the electoral system and government in the United States is structured.
What does "winning" even mean for the left? The people who choose leftism will win against everyone else for the reasons you say, but like all political victories, winning is (comparatively) the easy part. Keeping your values intact and governing a successful society is the hard part.
The Left seems to have given up on liberalism in persuit of victory. They are in the process of giving up on progressivism. What remains?
The Left seems to have given up on liberalism in persuit of victory. They are in the process of giving up on progressivism. What remains?
What's good about liberalism?
They seem more progressive than ever; an open socialist nearly won their primary last year.
They seem more progressive than ever; an open socialist nearly won their primary last year.
Liberalism and progressiveism are not the same thing.
> The Left seems to have given up on liberalism in persuit of victory. They are in the process of giving up on progressivism.
This is a direct quote from the post I am replying to. I know liberalism and progressiveness aren't the same thing. I am stating that they're getting more progressive, and I don't see why liberalism declining is a bad thing.
This is a direct quote from the post I am replying to. I know liberalism and progressiveness aren't the same thing. I am stating that they're getting more progressive, and I don't see why liberalism declining is a bad thing.
Socialism, liberalism, and progressivism are all different ideas.
Leftism tries to combine these ideas into a coherent political ideology. Liberalism (the part about individual rights) is a check on the abuses of socialism, and progressivism is supposed to make it all work (experts in control making good decisions).
I'm not a Leftist, but I can acknowledge that it's a coherent ideology.
When you take Leftism and take away liberalism and progressivism, you are left with rebels that have no solution to anything. Like BLM and antifa which are always recruiting to attack a mysterious "system" rather than making serious proposals. (It's always easier to get people to agree on a problem than a solution.) If they were to win, it would look more like Venezuela or Cuba than Denmark or Sweden.
Leftism tries to combine these ideas into a coherent political ideology. Liberalism (the part about individual rights) is a check on the abuses of socialism, and progressivism is supposed to make it all work (experts in control making good decisions).
I'm not a Leftist, but I can acknowledge that it's a coherent ideology.
When you take Leftism and take away liberalism and progressivism, you are left with rebels that have no solution to anything. Like BLM and antifa which are always recruiting to attack a mysterious "system" rather than making serious proposals. (It's always easier to get people to agree on a problem than a solution.) If they were to win, it would look more like Venezuela or Cuba than Denmark or Sweden.
I know that liberalism and progressiveness are different things. Liberalism isn't tied to progressiveness, but progressiveness is inherently tied to economic justice. Socialism is certainly a progressive stance.
Liberalism can be dropped with no real loss.
What's wrong with Cuba? It seems like it's doing pretty well; it has more or less the longest-lasting government in South America, largely because it dropped liberalism.
Liberalism can be dropped with no real loss.
What's wrong with Cuba? It seems like it's doing pretty well; it has more or less the longest-lasting government in South America, largely because it dropped liberalism.
> I just think the solution should lie in : 1) dialog 2) laws
If they're not willing to be reasonable (like, you don't get to "dialog" about whether or not genocide is appropriate), then the best and most moral course of action could very well be to stop them from recruiting your friends.
In the context of tech, this is the essence of deplatforming. Twitter and Facebook cannot censor, since they are not governments. However, as private entities, they can decide not to let you use their service. That's their private property rights in action.
If they're not willing to be reasonable (like, you don't get to "dialog" about whether or not genocide is appropriate), then the best and most moral course of action could very well be to stop them from recruiting your friends.
In the context of tech, this is the essence of deplatforming. Twitter and Facebook cannot censor, since they are not governments. However, as private entities, they can decide not to let you use their service. That's their private property rights in action.
jude-(2)
If you cannot censor away opinions, if suppression of ideas doesn't work then why in exactly these kinds of articles do people bemoan it as dangerous?
I may agree that most censorship is wrong but it does work. It worked for centuries to help maintain systems of inequality.
It worked for centuries to maintain familial control and enforce sexual monoculture in many countries. Information control works so well, it prevents people from even understanding themselves or what they really want in the face of ideologically imposed values.
We are steeped in a culture of Hollywood telling us what the lessons of history are about. One of the off repeated "hopeful" messages we are fed is that you can't kill an idea but my reading of history has led me to the other conclusion entirely. That controlling the conversation, its constraints and determining the status quo are profoundly powerful tools.
I may agree that most censorship is wrong but it does work. It worked for centuries to help maintain systems of inequality.
It worked for centuries to maintain familial control and enforce sexual monoculture in many countries. Information control works so well, it prevents people from even understanding themselves or what they really want in the face of ideologically imposed values.
We are steeped in a culture of Hollywood telling us what the lessons of history are about. One of the off repeated "hopeful" messages we are fed is that you can't kill an idea but my reading of history has led me to the other conclusion entirely. That controlling the conversation, its constraints and determining the status quo are profoundly powerful tools.
Of course you can do it in theory. The question is, whether you can do it today and whether those attempts will turn out more dangerous than helpful. IT achievements allows for extremely easy exchange of the information throughout the world. You can easily circumvent many kinds of blocking. You have E2E conversations available to masses, so you can't effectively censor anything centrally.
Whether that's good or bad is for history to decide. Recently I saw some guy watching video about terrorists executing some prisoner. He got it via whatsapp. That video was pro-terrorist, they obviously are trying to recruit more people by spreading their propaganda. Of course I would prefer such kinds of conversations to be silenced. The thing is, it can't be silenced. Russia tried to block Telegram, they poured lots of IT resources, they used DPI and other methods but they did not succeed and did lots of collateral damage in the process by blocking innocent websites.
I think that genie is out of the bottle already and we have to learn how to live with it. IMO governments right now are trying another method: they put lots of disinformation, hoping that average folk won't find out which one is true. Not blocking specific information, but making it hard to find and distinguish truth from false. That works for me, I already stopped to trust most of the information on the web.
Whether that's good or bad is for history to decide. Recently I saw some guy watching video about terrorists executing some prisoner. He got it via whatsapp. That video was pro-terrorist, they obviously are trying to recruit more people by spreading their propaganda. Of course I would prefer such kinds of conversations to be silenced. The thing is, it can't be silenced. Russia tried to block Telegram, they poured lots of IT resources, they used DPI and other methods but they did not succeed and did lots of collateral damage in the process by blocking innocent websites.
I think that genie is out of the bottle already and we have to learn how to live with it. IMO governments right now are trying another method: they put lots of disinformation, hoping that average folk won't find out which one is true. Not blocking specific information, but making it hard to find and distinguish truth from false. That works for me, I already stopped to trust most of the information on the web.
> Of course you can do it in theory. The question is, whether you can do it today and whether those attempts will turn out more dangerous than helpful.
Allow me to restate my position more precisely. I believe the supresion of information has worked in the past. And based on this I will need very compelling evidence to convince me that we live in a special time when it is impossible and no longer is effective.
I'm happy to be wrong but am skeptical when people begin claiming their circumstances are special in history.
Allow me to restate my position more precisely. I believe the supresion of information has worked in the past. And based on this I will need very compelling evidence to convince me that we live in a special time when it is impossible and no longer is effective.
I'm happy to be wrong but am skeptical when people begin claiming their circumstances are special in history.
The article itself makes the arguments for this. One, hate speech just rebrands. Two, the assumption that what you want censored is what will get censored is false, especially if you feel you are the marginalized group already. So what censorship is effective? Pushing existing already popular ideas that are widely held already. This makes censorship basically useless, and more so creates problems for anyone who doesn’t strictly believe I the most popular ideas. Flat earth is a perfect example of an idea that doesn’t get censored and doesn’t need to be because culture already accepts it is wrong. The truth is almost all ideas don’t need censorship for the same reason flat earth doesn’t. We already make violence and calls to violence illegal which is the generally accepted tipping point of interfering with someone’s life. Censoring views that some may lead to violence is starting to get into a gray area, and censoring views that are just “hate” goes well beyond gray to pure opinion of the person interpreting and we don’t want to give tech companies the ability to deem their interpretation of what we say as “hate” when it has no basis.
> The article itself makes the arguments for this. One, hate speech just rebrands. Two, the assumption that what you want censored is what will get censored is false,
I don't believe either point is true. For example, the concerted efforts to silence, defame and de-platform socialists in 1950s America were highly effect.
I don't believe either point is true. For example, the concerted efforts to silence, defame and de-platform socialists in 1950s America were highly effect.
And further, while you maybe can make an argument that it wasn't possible ten years ago, we're headed in a very centralized direction at this point. There are basically three places where broad populations can engage in discourse/recruit/radicalize and there may be fewer in another ten years.
[deleted]
> Of course you can do it in theory.
It worked practically in practice in history. It works also practically in countries like Saudi Arabia. Once in a while censorship does not manage to stop all opposition, which is why once in a while revolutions and such succeed.
But practically speaking, censorship works. That does not makes it right thing to do or something, which would be different claim.
Just because people manage to say censored things here and there just means it cant stop completely all such claims and materials. But it does minimize who will run into them, how many of them will be available and so on.
It worked practically in practice in history. It works also practically in countries like Saudi Arabia. Once in a while censorship does not manage to stop all opposition, which is why once in a while revolutions and such succeed.
But practically speaking, censorship works. That does not makes it right thing to do or something, which would be different claim.
Just because people manage to say censored things here and there just means it cant stop completely all such claims and materials. But it does minimize who will run into them, how many of them will be available and so on.
China?
> If you cannot censor away opinions, if suppression of ideas doesn't work then why in exactly these kinds of articles do people bemoan it as dangerous?
They may think censorship doesn't work but can still do damage, such as by lowering the standing and integrity of the left, damaging the liberal commons, or paradoxically making censored ideas more appealing.
They may think censorship doesn't work but can still do damage, such as by lowering the standing and integrity of the left, damaging the liberal commons, or paradoxically making censored ideas more appealing.
>If you cannot censor away opinions, if suppression of ideas doesn't work then why in exactly these kinds of articles do people bemoan it as dangerous?
Because instead of treating the disease (terrible dehumanizing ideologies) it treats the symptom (them talking about it).
Instead of a fire, it creates a bomb.
>It worked for centuries to maintain familial control and enforce sexual monoculture in many countries. Information control works so well, it prevents people from even understanding themselves or what they really want in the face of ideologically imposed values.
It worked before the Internet.
>controlling the conversation, its constraints and determining the status quo are profoundly powerful tools.
In the short term. Determining the status quo isn't up to censors. It's up to society. And while censors have some power, they're not omniscient, so they always get circumvented eventually.
Because instead of treating the disease (terrible dehumanizing ideologies) it treats the symptom (them talking about it).
Instead of a fire, it creates a bomb.
>It worked for centuries to maintain familial control and enforce sexual monoculture in many countries. Information control works so well, it prevents people from even understanding themselves or what they really want in the face of ideologically imposed values.
It worked before the Internet.
>controlling the conversation, its constraints and determining the status quo are profoundly powerful tools.
In the short term. Determining the status quo isn't up to censors. It's up to society. And while censors have some power, they're not omniscient, so they always get circumvented eventually.
> In the short term. Determining the status quo isn't up to censors.
I don't agree. Before WWII, America had a very small standing army. It was practically an American value that the country demilitarized after each war. But from 1900 through WWI and especially through WWII there was a deliberate effort by the government and elites to change that. In just 40 years America went from barely militarized to having a large and expensive standing force that was viewed as a bedrock of American virtues.
Similar things happened throughout history regarding sanitation, citizenship, traffic laws and more. I believe the information ecosystem has a tremendous impact on people's beliefs and values.
I don't agree. Before WWII, America had a very small standing army. It was practically an American value that the country demilitarized after each war. But from 1900 through WWI and especially through WWII there was a deliberate effort by the government and elites to change that. In just 40 years America went from barely militarized to having a large and expensive standing force that was viewed as a bedrock of American virtues.
Similar things happened throughout history regarding sanitation, citizenship, traffic laws and more. I believe the information ecosystem has a tremendous impact on people's beliefs and values.
Have you considered the possibility that the experience of WWI and WWII changed their model of the world? Maybe the public felt that another war could break out and therefore deemed necessary to have a strong military to protect themselves
>If you cannot censor away opinions, if suppression of ideas doesn't work then why in exactly these kinds of articles do people bemoan it as dangerous?
Because the unintended consequences are harmful to bystanders. Probably more harmful than to the intended targets, since they're already socially ostracized for their openly bigoted views. Take, for example, the recent upswing in deplatforming. Most of the statistical data seems to suggest that the masses have become more afraid to speak openly, but it doesn't seem to have actually stopped extreme racists from saying racist things.
Because the unintended consequences are harmful to bystanders. Probably more harmful than to the intended targets, since they're already socially ostracized for their openly bigoted views. Take, for example, the recent upswing in deplatforming. Most of the statistical data seems to suggest that the masses have become more afraid to speak openly, but it doesn't seem to have actually stopped extreme racists from saying racist things.
Which statistics?
> suppression of ideas doesn't work then why in exactly these kinds of articles do people bemoan it as dangerous?
Because then these bad ideas fester in dark places and emerge as an entrenched ideology that is more difficult or impossible to respond to before they have resulted in adverse outcomes.
> I may agree that most censorship is wrong but it does work. It worked for centuries to help maintain systems of inequality.
It seems you’ve answered your own question then. Censorship is bad because it sustains systems of inequality.
> It worked for centuries to maintain familial control and enforce sexual monoculture in many countries. Information control works so well, it prevents people from even understanding themselves or what they really want in the face of ideologically imposed values.
You are attributing effects to censorship when material circumstances and ideology contributed in large amounts. Its much easier to destroy ideas by burning books when all the books are manufactured by skilled craftsman using their hands.
> We are steeped in a culture of Hollywood telling us what the lessons of history are about. One of the off repeated "hopeful" messages we are fed is that you can't kill an idea but my reading of history has led me to the other conclusion entirely. That controlling the conversation, its constraints and determining the status quo are profoundly powerful tools.
You can’t kill an idea but you can delay it or make people too terrified to spread it openly.
Because then these bad ideas fester in dark places and emerge as an entrenched ideology that is more difficult or impossible to respond to before they have resulted in adverse outcomes.
> I may agree that most censorship is wrong but it does work. It worked for centuries to help maintain systems of inequality.
It seems you’ve answered your own question then. Censorship is bad because it sustains systems of inequality.
> It worked for centuries to maintain familial control and enforce sexual monoculture in many countries. Information control works so well, it prevents people from even understanding themselves or what they really want in the face of ideologically imposed values.
You are attributing effects to censorship when material circumstances and ideology contributed in large amounts. Its much easier to destroy ideas by burning books when all the books are manufactured by skilled craftsman using their hands.
> We are steeped in a culture of Hollywood telling us what the lessons of history are about. One of the off repeated "hopeful" messages we are fed is that you can't kill an idea but my reading of history has led me to the other conclusion entirely. That controlling the conversation, its constraints and determining the status quo are profoundly powerful tools.
You can’t kill an idea but you can delay it or make people too terrified to spread it openly.
>If you cannot censor away opinions, if suppression of ideas doesn't work then why in exactly these kinds of articles do people bemoan it as dangerous?
I've read a screenshot of some anonymous post that goes like:
"There's a general phenomenon I've noticed on the internet. Any forum with free speech and little to no moderation becomes right wing. Leftist ideas cannot exist without censorship and moderation."
Which I think misreads the situation slightly. When sites censor people, it pushes those censored to other sites. Concentrates them. When all sites censoring have a left bias, both the censored and uncensored areas become echo chambers. Censorship then is segregation, but instead of having water fountains for blacks and whites, you have websites for lefts and rights. The only reason sites like gab and parler exist is because twitter censors.
If you really believe in equal rights and desegregation, you would not censor people based on their diversity of opinions. If you really believe diversity is our strength, then you tolerate diverse opinions, even if you find some of the opinions repugnant.
As the article points out, it's not a question of "should" you censor. It's a question of "can" you censor. Clearly censorship fails in the worst possible way. It further radicalizes both sides. If you read both /r/politics and patriots.win, it's like both groups live in two entirely separate worlds. When you isolate populations their evolutions take separate paths.
And that's how it is ultimately dangerous. Censorship leaves you with two groups of radicals with no common ground. At some point, those two groups meet and that's when bad things happen.
I've read a screenshot of some anonymous post that goes like:
"There's a general phenomenon I've noticed on the internet. Any forum with free speech and little to no moderation becomes right wing. Leftist ideas cannot exist without censorship and moderation."
Which I think misreads the situation slightly. When sites censor people, it pushes those censored to other sites. Concentrates them. When all sites censoring have a left bias, both the censored and uncensored areas become echo chambers. Censorship then is segregation, but instead of having water fountains for blacks and whites, you have websites for lefts and rights. The only reason sites like gab and parler exist is because twitter censors.
If you really believe in equal rights and desegregation, you would not censor people based on their diversity of opinions. If you really believe diversity is our strength, then you tolerate diverse opinions, even if you find some of the opinions repugnant.
As the article points out, it's not a question of "should" you censor. It's a question of "can" you censor. Clearly censorship fails in the worst possible way. It further radicalizes both sides. If you read both /r/politics and patriots.win, it's like both groups live in two entirely separate worlds. When you isolate populations their evolutions take separate paths.
And that's how it is ultimately dangerous. Censorship leaves you with two groups of radicals with no common ground. At some point, those two groups meet and that's when bad things happen.
>"There's a general phenomenon I've noticed on the internet. Any forum with free speech and little to no moderation becomes right wing. Leftist ideas cannot exist without censorship and moderation."
I've noticed similar and I'm not entirely sure it's right wing but more of extremism of ideas in general. Essentially, the "loudest" people (or ideas) win the conversation without moderation.
I'd say this has more to do with group think and populism. If there is any moderation it's going to steer the ground in a specific direction of populism. The more aggressively shared an idea is, the more successful it tends to be. It's not a linear relationship, but ideas tend to pick up steam (the flat Earth phenomenon blows my mind to this day). Extremists seem to be the ones most willing to verbalize and share these ideas that make them "loud." There's probably some overlap here on how effective propoganda is through repetition. Just look at how ads tend to focus on spreading an idea through repetition and seem to work.
Sometimes modern "right wing" ideas are difficult to discern from other extremists because the spectrum has slid and much of the modern right wing is extremist. To be fair, we have a lot of left wing extremists verging on being bananas as well. I know plenty of conservatives who feel fairly disenfranchised by the current right wing we've been seeing. I don't agree with many of their ideas but they make good points and have civil discussions about their different opinions and perspectives.
I've noticed similar and I'm not entirely sure it's right wing but more of extremism of ideas in general. Essentially, the "loudest" people (or ideas) win the conversation without moderation.
I'd say this has more to do with group think and populism. If there is any moderation it's going to steer the ground in a specific direction of populism. The more aggressively shared an idea is, the more successful it tends to be. It's not a linear relationship, but ideas tend to pick up steam (the flat Earth phenomenon blows my mind to this day). Extremists seem to be the ones most willing to verbalize and share these ideas that make them "loud." There's probably some overlap here on how effective propoganda is through repetition. Just look at how ads tend to focus on spreading an idea through repetition and seem to work.
Sometimes modern "right wing" ideas are difficult to discern from other extremists because the spectrum has slid and much of the modern right wing is extremist. To be fair, we have a lot of left wing extremists verging on being bananas as well. I know plenty of conservatives who feel fairly disenfranchised by the current right wing we've been seeing. I don't agree with many of their ideas but they make good points and have civil discussions about their different opinions and perspectives.
> "There's a general phenomenon I've noticed on the internet. Any forum with free speech and little to no moderation becomes right wing. Leftist ideas cannot exist without censorship and moderation."
I suspect that "right wing" here is euphemism for more of sexism and racism. Because I can tell you that moderate conservative, economic conservative and for that matter libertarian forums all have moderation too. They cant exist without moderation and censorship either.
What happens however is that without moderation people will use harassment, trolling, both including massive sexist and racist statements to push away people who disagree with them. And people who dont want to be subjects of those leave. So you end up with people who are fine with trolling, racism and sexism and the end result is biased toward right wing. You know who will be harassed the most? Anyone perceived as feminist or sjw.
The actual extreme left, which I guess would be defined more as a marxism or communists, is relatively small in numbers. They are also pretty often sexists and racists too, so I dunno how it crosses with that.
I suspect that "right wing" here is euphemism for more of sexism and racism. Because I can tell you that moderate conservative, economic conservative and for that matter libertarian forums all have moderation too. They cant exist without moderation and censorship either.
What happens however is that without moderation people will use harassment, trolling, both including massive sexist and racist statements to push away people who disagree with them. And people who dont want to be subjects of those leave. So you end up with people who are fine with trolling, racism and sexism and the end result is biased toward right wing. You know who will be harassed the most? Anyone perceived as feminist or sjw.
The actual extreme left, which I guess would be defined more as a marxism or communists, is relatively small in numbers. They are also pretty often sexists and racists too, so I dunno how it crosses with that.
>They cant exist without moderation and censorship either.
Back when email arrived with a "You've got mail!" AOL chats were not moderated. I assure you they existed. All you needed was the ignore button. People are perfectly capable of deciding who to talk to on their own. Current UX seems designed to make you think you need moderators, but that is not a requirement.
Back when email arrived with a "You've got mail!" AOL chats were not moderated. I assure you they existed. All you needed was the ignore button. People are perfectly capable of deciding who to talk to on their own. Current UX seems designed to make you think you need moderators, but that is not a requirement.
> "If you cannot censor away opinions, if suppression of ideas doesn't work..."
> "I may agree that most censorship is wrong but it does work."
that's at least falling for an availability bias. we have a extraordinarily tiny, highly-fragmented, and highly-idealized view into history. the more reasonable null hypothesis would be to assume folks had a range of opinions on any given topic, but their behaviors were modulated through social norms and coercion.
> "I may agree that most censorship is wrong but it does work."
that's at least falling for an availability bias. we have a extraordinarily tiny, highly-fragmented, and highly-idealized view into history. the more reasonable null hypothesis would be to assume folks had a range of opinions on any given topic, but their behaviors were modulated through social norms and coercion.
That's exactly my point. I don't think censorship changes people's minds immediately. But over time, the absence of an idea creates a status quo bias. People born into a society where certain ideas are circulated less are less likely to encounter and adopt them.
People change their behavior based on what is acceptable not just based upon what they believe. If using a racial slur will get a person written up at work, they have an incentive to hold back when the instinct arises to use it. The absence of racial slurs at work will make new workers less likely to use them as people often copy the environment they inhabit for the sake of cohesion.
People change their behavior based on what is acceptable not just based upon what they believe. If using a racial slur will get a person written up at work, they have an incentive to hold back when the instinct arises to use it. The absence of racial slurs at work will make new workers less likely to use them as people often copy the environment they inhabit for the sake of cohesion.
>If you cannot censor away opinions, if suppression of ideas doesn't work then why in exactly these kinds of articles do people bemoan it as dangerous?
Because the process itself involves heaping lots of social costs on people in the attempt to hurt their narratives, and that normally we would consider this bad? I mean, if we concede that literally throwing people in prison is ineffective then shouldn't the argument for not throwing people in prison be obvious?
Because the process itself involves heaping lots of social costs on people in the attempt to hurt their narratives, and that normally we would consider this bad? I mean, if we concede that literally throwing people in prison is ineffective then shouldn't the argument for not throwing people in prison be obvious?
> Because the process itself involves heaping lots of social costs on people
I'm open to that argument. But I think this writer is really trying to have it both ways. They literally say, censorship doesn't work and we shouldn't do it because we are the ones who will be censored. It just seems like a kitchen sink argument. Either it is dangerous to society because it works or it is dangerous to a few because it is unjustly punitive.
I am not fully in agreement with what is happening right now because I believe it is fundamentally immoral to force someone into a society where they must provide for themselves and then to take away their means of provision.
But I also see our society as deeply censoros before this and a lot of people who are very upset now were fully willing to ignore that as long as it didn't broach opinions they value. Two wrongs don't make a right but it does leave me a little suspicious of how genuine they are and how magnanimous they will be when the pendulum of discourse swings back in their favor.
I'm open to that argument. But I think this writer is really trying to have it both ways. They literally say, censorship doesn't work and we shouldn't do it because we are the ones who will be censored. It just seems like a kitchen sink argument. Either it is dangerous to society because it works or it is dangerous to a few because it is unjustly punitive.
I am not fully in agreement with what is happening right now because I believe it is fundamentally immoral to force someone into a society where they must provide for themselves and then to take away their means of provision.
But I also see our society as deeply censoros before this and a lot of people who are very upset now were fully willing to ignore that as long as it didn't broach opinions they value. Two wrongs don't make a right but it does leave me a little suspicious of how genuine they are and how magnanimous they will be when the pendulum of discourse swings back in their favor.
I have some unprofessional sociological suspicions, so I will lay them out as assertions with this caveat serving as the blanket qualifier.
First, some observations:
1. Research has found that the probability of conspiratorial thinking is quadratic with respect to political extremism in either direction.
2. Dangerous political movements are predicated on an "us v. them" mentality, almost by definition of dangerous. What makes a group dangerous is precisely the fact that they are willing to harm people in concrete ways, and willingness to harm requires a targeted "them".
3. Distributed censorship and other forms of persecution are actually conspiracies with an inherent "us" and "them." The more groups (media companies, government, etc) censor similar ideas in similar ways for similar reasons, the more apt appears the description "they conspired against those ideas."
Therefore: the problem with censorship is that it makes the conspiracy theorists right. Censorship is also an acknowledgement that the censor and censored are in fact different and opposing groups. No longer can the censor say "come on guys, we're all on the same team here," they have ceded that high ground.
Both of these effects can actually help extremist groups attract new people. As they say Plures efficimur, quitiens metimur a vobis: semen est sanguis Christianorum: the blood of the martyrs is the seed of the Church.
HOWEVER
All of this analysis is a kind of "perfect sphere on a friction-less plane" view of the market of ideas. We must not fall into the trap of thinking that if we removed all censorship, the market of ideas would be efficient. If censorship is an effort to artificially devalue some ideas, there is also the countervailing force of amplification which artificially inflates.
The problem is that money has always (and technology has recently) enabled people to distort the market of ideas through amplification. There are actually bad actors (e.g. Russia) who actively amplify ideas beneficial to their interests by putting engineered talking points into fake social media accounts.
I do not believe it is possible to fight such a strategy on the same terms. Amplifying contrary ideas simply increases polarization. Attempting to re-level the playing field via censorship has the problems I listed earlier.
First, some observations:
1. Research has found that the probability of conspiratorial thinking is quadratic with respect to political extremism in either direction.
2. Dangerous political movements are predicated on an "us v. them" mentality, almost by definition of dangerous. What makes a group dangerous is precisely the fact that they are willing to harm people in concrete ways, and willingness to harm requires a targeted "them".
3. Distributed censorship and other forms of persecution are actually conspiracies with an inherent "us" and "them." The more groups (media companies, government, etc) censor similar ideas in similar ways for similar reasons, the more apt appears the description "they conspired against those ideas."
Therefore: the problem with censorship is that it makes the conspiracy theorists right. Censorship is also an acknowledgement that the censor and censored are in fact different and opposing groups. No longer can the censor say "come on guys, we're all on the same team here," they have ceded that high ground.
Both of these effects can actually help extremist groups attract new people. As they say Plures efficimur, quitiens metimur a vobis: semen est sanguis Christianorum: the blood of the martyrs is the seed of the Church.
HOWEVER
All of this analysis is a kind of "perfect sphere on a friction-less plane" view of the market of ideas. We must not fall into the trap of thinking that if we removed all censorship, the market of ideas would be efficient. If censorship is an effort to artificially devalue some ideas, there is also the countervailing force of amplification which artificially inflates.
The problem is that money has always (and technology has recently) enabled people to distort the market of ideas through amplification. There are actually bad actors (e.g. Russia) who actively amplify ideas beneficial to their interests by putting engineered talking points into fake social media accounts.
I do not believe it is possible to fight such a strategy on the same terms. Amplifying contrary ideas simply increases polarization. Attempting to re-level the playing field via censorship has the problems I listed earlier.
> 1. Research has found that the probability of conspiratorial thinking is quadratic with respect to political extremism in either direction.
Extremism has no natural quantification. This statement is nonsense.
Extremism has no natural quantification. This statement is nonsense.
I don't what the research is in question, but I absolutely think that political extremism, particularly in the context of two party systems, can quantified in at least a semi-meaningful way.
Create a list of policies. Poll a large equally split group of registered voters from either party. Assign each policy an extremism index based on some combination of the amount of cross party support, and the percentage of total support for each.
Now you can use that list to make a reasonable assessment of political extremism based on which of the policies an individual supports.
Create a list of policies. Poll a large equally split group of registered voters from either party. Assign each policy an extremism index based on some combination of the amount of cross party support, and the percentage of total support for each.
Now you can use that list to make a reasonable assessment of political extremism based on which of the policies an individual supports.
You might be able to order it, sure. Translating that into magnitudes is entirely subjective.
Why wouldn't the magnitude be a direct consequence of the two factors I already mentioned? Crossparty support and percentage of total?
Why would it?
It does if and only if that's what you reduce extremism down to.
There's enough there to assert a quadratic relationship (in a given regime) with _their particular phenomenological measurement_ of extremism.
In the physical sciences we can often get away with ignoring the difference between what a measurement procedure outputs, and what it is measuring. But this only because we have high degrees of repeatability, and concordance with other ways of measurement. Neither has been shown to apply here.
The reporting of this is made worse by the use of a common term, rather than the diagnostic tool. Yes, there are common meanings of "energy", "momentum", and so forth, but people understand that they mean very specific technical definitions when a physicist uses them.
It does if and only if that's what you reduce extremism down to.
There's enough there to assert a quadratic relationship (in a given regime) with _their particular phenomenological measurement_ of extremism.
In the physical sciences we can often get away with ignoring the difference between what a measurement procedure outputs, and what it is measuring. But this only because we have high degrees of repeatability, and concordance with other ways of measurement. Neither has been shown to apply here.
The reporting of this is made worse by the use of a common term, rather than the diagnostic tool. Yes, there are common meanings of "energy", "momentum", and so forth, but people understand that they mean very specific technical definitions when a physicist uses them.
You can take that up with the authors:
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/271714033_Political...
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/271714033_Political...
You can censor obvious examples of extremism. I don't think anyone disagreed that Youtube was correct in censoring Isis recruitment videos, for instance.
The problem is that people are trying to censor "dog-whistling" extremism. By its very nature, it's a losing battle. Only dogs can hear dog whistles, so there's a high likelihood that you're censoring someone innocent. Also, even if you do censor a dog whistle, they can easily make another.
The problem is that people are trying to censor "dog-whistling" extremism. By its very nature, it's a losing battle. Only dogs can hear dog whistles, so there's a high likelihood that you're censoring someone innocent. Also, even if you do censor a dog whistle, they can easily make another.
Allowing "dog whistles" to be censored also creates a powerful incentive to redefine ideas the censors don't like as "dog whistles." For example: https://www.nytimes.com/2020/09/18/opinion/biden-latino-vote...
> With the help of two liberal pollsters, Joshua Ulibarri and Celinda Lake, we conducted 15 focus groups with members of various Hispanic communities across the country and ran a national survey. We also polled large cohorts of whites and African-Americans. The results are sobering. We began by asking eligible voters how “convincing” they found a dog-whistle message lifted from Republican talking points. Among other elements, the message condemned “illegal immigration from places overrun with drugs and criminal gangs” and called for “fully funding the police, so our communities are not threatened by people who refuse to follow our laws.”
> Almost three out of five white respondents judged the message convincing. More surprising, exactly the same percentage of African-Americans agreed, as did an even higher percentage of Latinos. These numbers do not translate directly into support for the Republican Party; too many other factors are at play. Nevertheless, the results tell us something important: a majority across the groups we surveyed did not repudiate Trump-style rhetoric as obviously racist and divisive, but instead agreed with it.
"Liberal pollsters" and "progressive" opinion writers perceived this example of "Trump-style rhetoric" as "dog whistles" and "obviously racist and divisive" but most Black and Latino people agreed with it.
> With the help of two liberal pollsters, Joshua Ulibarri and Celinda Lake, we conducted 15 focus groups with members of various Hispanic communities across the country and ran a national survey. We also polled large cohorts of whites and African-Americans. The results are sobering. We began by asking eligible voters how “convincing” they found a dog-whistle message lifted from Republican talking points. Among other elements, the message condemned “illegal immigration from places overrun with drugs and criminal gangs” and called for “fully funding the police, so our communities are not threatened by people who refuse to follow our laws.”
> Almost three out of five white respondents judged the message convincing. More surprising, exactly the same percentage of African-Americans agreed, as did an even higher percentage of Latinos. These numbers do not translate directly into support for the Republican Party; too many other factors are at play. Nevertheless, the results tell us something important: a majority across the groups we surveyed did not repudiate Trump-style rhetoric as obviously racist and divisive, but instead agreed with it.
"Liberal pollsters" and "progressive" opinion writers perceived this example of "Trump-style rhetoric" as "dog whistles" and "obviously racist and divisive" but most Black and Latino people agreed with it.
This reminds me of the argument that police forces can't be racist if they employ black officers. Even black police officers are more likely to shoot an innocent black man than an innocent white man in the same situation. Want to find someone who is racist against Argentinians? Go to Peru or Chile. Just because some Latinos in a focus group agree with a message does not mean it's not racist against Latinos.
The stats show the police, black or white, are about equally likely to use excessive force against black or white people _per incident_. The problem is that they make contact with black people far more often per-capita. Some of this is being more suspicious of black people, of looking harder at them to find something. This is most convincingly seen with the drug war, where uses of drugs are about equal by race, but black people are stopped, searched, and arrested significantly more often. Some is a larger pre-existing societal problem of where people live. When black people are more likely to live in bad neighborhoods, and police are more likely to have encounters in bad neighborhoods...
> Just because some Latinos in a focus group agree with a message does not mean it's not racist against Latinos.
It's not "some." According to the article, it's a decisive majority (more than 3 in 5).
It's not "some." According to the article, it's a decisive majority (more than 3 in 5).
[deleted]
ralmidani(1)
It's embarrassing to admit, but with my ban today from /r/science, I'm now banned from three major subreddits, with the other two being /r/politics and /r/worldnews.
While I'm highly opinionated, I've always followed these subreddits' rules because I do believe rules are important for functional forums. These subreddits are also not some niche forum catering to a select group; they're major forums around topics of very general interest, so they really should have very high tolerance for unorthodox viewpoints.
All the bans I received were entirely politically/ideologically motivated.
In /r/politics I was permanently banned for saying something like 'I don't think little girls should be forced to share change rooms with little boys who identify as girls'.
For that I was accused of transphobia and permanently banned. The mod who imposed the ban wouldn't even quote the offending statement or try to explain what was transphobic about it. In private messages, they just stuck to their guns and stonewalled me on my requests for elaboration.
The /r/science ban was due to a comment I posted which contained a harsh criticism of the authors of a posted article. These authors were not forum members, so there was no subreddit rule violation, as far as I'm aware. I strongly suspect the real motivation for the ban was that in the comment, I also criticized the study's premise, that observing "racial blind ideology", was by definition, "anti-Black".
This is the article in question:
https://academictimes.com/belief-in-white-jesus-linked-to-ra...
I really think there is a significant amount of extremism coming from the establishment nowadays, and the attempts to silence opposing viewpoints is a symptom of that.
While I'm highly opinionated, I've always followed these subreddits' rules because I do believe rules are important for functional forums. These subreddits are also not some niche forum catering to a select group; they're major forums around topics of very general interest, so they really should have very high tolerance for unorthodox viewpoints.
All the bans I received were entirely politically/ideologically motivated.
In /r/politics I was permanently banned for saying something like 'I don't think little girls should be forced to share change rooms with little boys who identify as girls'.
For that I was accused of transphobia and permanently banned. The mod who imposed the ban wouldn't even quote the offending statement or try to explain what was transphobic about it. In private messages, they just stuck to their guns and stonewalled me on my requests for elaboration.
The /r/science ban was due to a comment I posted which contained a harsh criticism of the authors of a posted article. These authors were not forum members, so there was no subreddit rule violation, as far as I'm aware. I strongly suspect the real motivation for the ban was that in the comment, I also criticized the study's premise, that observing "racial blind ideology", was by definition, "anti-Black".
This is the article in question:
https://academictimes.com/belief-in-white-jesus-linked-to-ra...
I really think there is a significant amount of extremism coming from the establishment nowadays, and the attempts to silence opposing viewpoints is a symptom of that.
Much of the assumptions of the article are the opposite of the titles conclusion.
Racism and hate did not go away. People were much less capable of organizing it and normalizing it's behavior before the internet. You actually had to go vast distances to get people together before. Now, it's a facebook group or 'conservative social media' platform away.
With the dawn of anonymity began the demonstration of human nature when it does not receive local social pressures. A completely new and unique prototype of communications that bypass our evolutionary social ques.
Without identity, pressure from peers, and authority, humans are left with the freedom to choose any way they want to conduct themselves.
Sadly, humans chose to conduct themselves poorly. A result a 2nd grader could also predict. Instead of caring about the truth they care about superiority. Instead of honesty they care about being on a team.
We can censor people. Governments can absolutely create a great firewall where only approved businesses are licensed and given access by ISP's to receive incoming socket connection requests. ISP's prevent this all the time due to multi layer NAT. ISP's can lock down ports and prevent two subscribers from communicating without a server that is explicitly allowed on their IP range to do so.
Certainly, we could. But anonymity has benefits. People can discuss important matters without that social threat. People cannot seek a recourse when they are offended, cannot censor information, etc.
Ghost in the Shell had a very interesting scenario in which people would VR dive into a group chat to discuss controversial events - and it all went mostly professional and fact seeking. This prediction is so far away from what we actually have now - actual fabrication of facts and cults that surround them. People entirely uninterested in reasoning or being reasoned with. Just a room full of people reinforcing each other without any basis in fact.
Also the author disagreeing "hate crimes" being a thing: the reason for hate crimes is that individuals would organize to intimidate the lives of others that belong to specific ethnic groups. People have a right to be free from that, and it's absolutely the purpose of government to uphold that right. Organized crime has always received special laws targeting it to deter it.
Racism and hate did not go away. People were much less capable of organizing it and normalizing it's behavior before the internet. You actually had to go vast distances to get people together before. Now, it's a facebook group or 'conservative social media' platform away.
With the dawn of anonymity began the demonstration of human nature when it does not receive local social pressures. A completely new and unique prototype of communications that bypass our evolutionary social ques.
Without identity, pressure from peers, and authority, humans are left with the freedom to choose any way they want to conduct themselves.
Sadly, humans chose to conduct themselves poorly. A result a 2nd grader could also predict. Instead of caring about the truth they care about superiority. Instead of honesty they care about being on a team.
We can censor people. Governments can absolutely create a great firewall where only approved businesses are licensed and given access by ISP's to receive incoming socket connection requests. ISP's prevent this all the time due to multi layer NAT. ISP's can lock down ports and prevent two subscribers from communicating without a server that is explicitly allowed on their IP range to do so.
Certainly, we could. But anonymity has benefits. People can discuss important matters without that social threat. People cannot seek a recourse when they are offended, cannot censor information, etc.
Ghost in the Shell had a very interesting scenario in which people would VR dive into a group chat to discuss controversial events - and it all went mostly professional and fact seeking. This prediction is so far away from what we actually have now - actual fabrication of facts and cults that surround them. People entirely uninterested in reasoning or being reasoned with. Just a room full of people reinforcing each other without any basis in fact.
Also the author disagreeing "hate crimes" being a thing: the reason for hate crimes is that individuals would organize to intimidate the lives of others that belong to specific ethnic groups. People have a right to be free from that, and it's absolutely the purpose of government to uphold that right. Organized crime has always received special laws targeting it to deter it.
The censorship we are talking about is not censorship: it's moderation.
Every forum worth using has moderation. The problem today is that most people aren't using user-moderated forums. Instead, they are using corporate-moderated social networks.
Every forum worth using has moderation. The problem today is that most people aren't using user-moderated forums. Instead, they are using corporate-moderated social networks.
Agreed. All social activities that willingly injure others can't be stopped; they can only be suppressed.
Murder, theft, cigar smoking in enclosed spaces... you name it, the only way to counteract malignant behaviors is to punish transgressors in order to obstruct the activity to the extent that a) we prevent it from growing, and b) we can tolerate the persistence of the activity at some diminished level of intensity.
Free speech requires us to strike a balance, like fighting crime. Driving hate speech underground successfully hides it from public view so that folks who don't want to swim in that cesspool can avoid it, the same way we hide porn from eyes who want to escape it. And the fact is, ever smarter tech methods can do this increasingly well, despite what Facebook claims.
Murder, theft, cigar smoking in enclosed spaces... you name it, the only way to counteract malignant behaviors is to punish transgressors in order to obstruct the activity to the extent that a) we prevent it from growing, and b) we can tolerate the persistence of the activity at some diminished level of intensity.
Free speech requires us to strike a balance, like fighting crime. Driving hate speech underground successfully hides it from public view so that folks who don't want to swim in that cesspool can avoid it, the same way we hide porn from eyes who want to escape it. And the fact is, ever smarter tech methods can do this increasingly well, despite what Facebook claims.
"moderation" is censorship.
If you make a post full of cat photos on an auto-mechanic forum and it's removed as off-topic, that's moderation, not censorship.
If you make a post talking about how Ford engines are terrible on that same forum and it's removed, that is much closer to censorship.
If you make a post talking about how Ford engines are terrible on that same forum and it's removed, that is much closer to censorship.
Incorrect. If I spam a link to my personal blog on hn the moderator or community will flag/kill them. That is not censorship.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Censorship
Censorship is the suppression of speech, public communication, or other information.
"moderation" fits within that definition.
Censorship is the suppression of speech, public communication, or other information.
"moderation" fits within that definition.
You are loosely interpreting the word "suppression".
Moderation is more akin to taking back an already provided microphone than it is to "suppression". The baseline for a person's ability to speak does not include someone else's forum.
A common example of censorship is with music on the radio: Musicians record a song which contains the word "fuck", which radio hosts would like to play in its entirety, but the hosts are regulated by a third party (government) to remove the word "fuck" from the track while broadcasting the song in the public radio spectrum. In this case, a third party (government) is constraining the radio host's ability to play a song on their own station. Because the radio host would normally be able to put whatever content they want on their station without assistance from a third party, this is censorship.
On the other hand, if a radio host decides to have a guest on their program, and chooses to end the broadcast before that guest is finished speaking, it is not censorship. The host is not suppressing the guest's inherent ability to speak, but instead are simply removing the microphone and audience they provided in the first place.
The irony is that the latter case is extremely common practice for many right-wing radio hosts who are equating moderation with censorship; yet these hosts do not claim they are practicing censorship themselves (they are not), even when rudely talking over guests or focusing on their own talking points.
Moderation is more akin to taking back an already provided microphone than it is to "suppression". The baseline for a person's ability to speak does not include someone else's forum.
A common example of censorship is with music on the radio: Musicians record a song which contains the word "fuck", which radio hosts would like to play in its entirety, but the hosts are regulated by a third party (government) to remove the word "fuck" from the track while broadcasting the song in the public radio spectrum. In this case, a third party (government) is constraining the radio host's ability to play a song on their own station. Because the radio host would normally be able to put whatever content they want on their station without assistance from a third party, this is censorship.
On the other hand, if a radio host decides to have a guest on their program, and chooses to end the broadcast before that guest is finished speaking, it is not censorship. The host is not suppressing the guest's inherent ability to speak, but instead are simply removing the microphone and audience they provided in the first place.
The irony is that the latter case is extremely common practice for many right-wing radio hosts who are equating moderation with censorship; yet these hosts do not claim they are practicing censorship themselves (they are not), even when rudely talking over guests or focusing on their own talking points.
> You are loosely interpreting the word "suppression".
Moderation / censorship, taxes / theft, capital execution / murder are the same idea, one is just the more palatable way to express the other.
> The irony is that the latter case is extremely common practice for many right-wing radio hosts who are equating moderation with censorship
It's just as much the case on many left wing broadcast media. Don't conflate "left wing" with "openness".
Moderation / censorship, taxes / theft, capital execution / murder are the same idea, one is just the more palatable way to express the other.
> The irony is that the latter case is extremely common practice for many right-wing radio hosts who are equating moderation with censorship
It's just as much the case on many left wing broadcast media. Don't conflate "left wing" with "openness".
> one is just the more palatable way to express the other.
If you would have bothered to read my comment, you would have learned that there is an explicit difference in meaning beyond a core idea.
> It's just as much the case on many left wing broadcast media. Don't conflate "left wing" with "openness".
I didn't mention "left wing" at all, nor did I imply that "left wing media" was any better than "right-wing media". Don't conflate criticism of "right-wing media" with blind faith in "left-wing media". My point was that it is "right-wing media" that are wrongly equating moderation with censorship here.
If you would have bothered to read my comment, you would have learned that there is an explicit difference in meaning beyond a core idea.
> It's just as much the case on many left wing broadcast media. Don't conflate "left wing" with "openness".
I didn't mention "left wing" at all, nor did I imply that "left wing media" was any better than "right-wing media". Don't conflate criticism of "right-wing media" with blind faith in "left-wing media". My point was that it is "right-wing media" that are wrongly equating moderation with censorship here.
I keep coming back to whether people in general still think open mindedness is a virtue. By open mindedness, I mean open to new experience, open to new ideas, open to new people. Practicing openness means observing and hearing and then evaluating for yourself whether you want to assimilate the experience or idea into your life.
Open mindedness also means being open to new information, even if it contradicts a basis for what you already believe or practice. If we are not open to contradiction, we can never recognize when we are wrong about what we believe. Being wrong about what we believe leads to doom for societies.
Hate is expressed in many ways, some nuanced, some not. But I have confidence that I can witness it, identify it, and categorize for myself. Allowing others to control what I am exposed to means I am no longer in control of what I know and believe. We've seen this creeping definition of hate over the last so many years. It's modulated to the point that I don't know what people mean any longer when they claim 'racism' for example, yet they prevent me from seeing or reading examples, even so I can just identify it and judge for myself.
Freedom means determining for yourself what is and is not hate. Having it hidden from you takes that freedom away.
It is our responsibility as free persons to learn how to observe and judge what should and should not be part of our lives. Collectively, we will keep hate at bay simply by recognizing it for ourselves and not assimilating it into our lives.
Open mindedness also means being open to new information, even if it contradicts a basis for what you already believe or practice. If we are not open to contradiction, we can never recognize when we are wrong about what we believe. Being wrong about what we believe leads to doom for societies.
Hate is expressed in many ways, some nuanced, some not. But I have confidence that I can witness it, identify it, and categorize for myself. Allowing others to control what I am exposed to means I am no longer in control of what I know and believe. We've seen this creeping definition of hate over the last so many years. It's modulated to the point that I don't know what people mean any longer when they claim 'racism' for example, yet they prevent me from seeing or reading examples, even so I can just identify it and judge for myself.
Freedom means determining for yourself what is and is not hate. Having it hidden from you takes that freedom away.
It is our responsibility as free persons to learn how to observe and judge what should and should not be part of our lives. Collectively, we will keep hate at bay simply by recognizing it for ourselves and not assimilating it into our lives.
In addition, in my experience I’ve found the discussion to be centered around the freedom to express one’s self, but free speech is also very much about the freedom of the recipient to seek out and listen to whatever speech they want.
You are describing a core concept called liberalism.
As a liberal myself, we've become increasingly unwelcome in the United States' only viable left of center political party.
We've allowed regressive, illiberal religious fanatics to take over our party. Just like the Republicans allowed regressive, illiberal religious fanatics to take over their party in the 80s. In both cases, they were considered useful idiots to be appeased while the adults in the room winked and nodded at each other. In both cases, the game theory quickly devolves into pandering to them, and increasingly alienating segments of the population. The wokies have increasingly demanded Mao-like public concessions from elites, and have been universally successful in getting it. This echoes what the evangelicals were able to demand and solicit from GOP members in the 80s-today.
The worst part about this is that the coalition of regressives on the left is so fractious, because they are all so obsessed with immutable characteristic driven identity. Any time an argument or policy that helps one identity group is proposed, another identity group complains they aren't getting the attention THEY need. Because it's such a fractious coalition, elites within the party apparatus and their allies in the press desperately try to spin certain elements of reality. An example of this is the startlingly weird coverage of the violent attacks against vulnerable Asian Americans in US cities. The fact that they are perpetrated exclusively by young black men is deliberately obfuscated, with significant efforts to conflate the attacks with a narrative of ascendant "white supremacists".
This video is from a mainstream, respected news outlet. It's utterly shocking in it's blatant obfuscation of facts to serve a narrative bias: https://youtu.be/1lyVzQsXLl4
Meanwhile, the opposition to the fractious regressive left, are feeding off of this. They are recruiting, and are gaining moral license to justify violence. This is extremely dangerous. These right wing extremists, who they are increasingly awakening at an alarming rate, is far more cohesive as a group. Antifa are mainly annoying, and when they use violent tactics, can be mildly dangerous. But they are weak, untrained, and unorganized compared to their right wing counterparts. In the US, they can easily acquire weapons, but the expertise to use them is not easy to come by.
Liberals like you and me need to stand up, and boldly and loudly and aggressively speak out against any and all forms of regressive, illiberal leftism. If we don't, 2022 is going to be an absolute bloodbath electorally, but far worse is the increasing opposite reaction these lunatics will solicit from the right. Trump's voters aren't going to just go away because the tech companies have banned them. This article clearly points that out.
As a liberal myself, we've become increasingly unwelcome in the United States' only viable left of center political party.
We've allowed regressive, illiberal religious fanatics to take over our party. Just like the Republicans allowed regressive, illiberal religious fanatics to take over their party in the 80s. In both cases, they were considered useful idiots to be appeased while the adults in the room winked and nodded at each other. In both cases, the game theory quickly devolves into pandering to them, and increasingly alienating segments of the population. The wokies have increasingly demanded Mao-like public concessions from elites, and have been universally successful in getting it. This echoes what the evangelicals were able to demand and solicit from GOP members in the 80s-today.
The worst part about this is that the coalition of regressives on the left is so fractious, because they are all so obsessed with immutable characteristic driven identity. Any time an argument or policy that helps one identity group is proposed, another identity group complains they aren't getting the attention THEY need. Because it's such a fractious coalition, elites within the party apparatus and their allies in the press desperately try to spin certain elements of reality. An example of this is the startlingly weird coverage of the violent attacks against vulnerable Asian Americans in US cities. The fact that they are perpetrated exclusively by young black men is deliberately obfuscated, with significant efforts to conflate the attacks with a narrative of ascendant "white supremacists".
This video is from a mainstream, respected news outlet. It's utterly shocking in it's blatant obfuscation of facts to serve a narrative bias: https://youtu.be/1lyVzQsXLl4
Meanwhile, the opposition to the fractious regressive left, are feeding off of this. They are recruiting, and are gaining moral license to justify violence. This is extremely dangerous. These right wing extremists, who they are increasingly awakening at an alarming rate, is far more cohesive as a group. Antifa are mainly annoying, and when they use violent tactics, can be mildly dangerous. But they are weak, untrained, and unorganized compared to their right wing counterparts. In the US, they can easily acquire weapons, but the expertise to use them is not easy to come by.
Liberals like you and me need to stand up, and boldly and loudly and aggressively speak out against any and all forms of regressive, illiberal leftism. If we don't, 2022 is going to be an absolute bloodbath electorally, but far worse is the increasing opposite reaction these lunatics will solicit from the right. Trump's voters aren't going to just go away because the tech companies have banned them. This article clearly points that out.
I've been fairly silent about all this the past few years. It's interesting because I come from the perspective of economic left (libertarian communism/socialism) and seeing the people around me fall pray to this obsession with identity hasn't been easy. More recently I've starting speaking out about it more, because it's getting to the point where it's effectively McCarthy-era.
I do have some thoughts on your post though.
> The wokies have increasingly demanded Mao-like public concessions from elites
Ultra-wokies are created by elites as a divisive mechanism of the working classes. There aren't workers anymore: there are oppressed black workers and privileged white workers. Round one: fight!
CRT and post-truth (whether on the cultural left or cultural right) are an arm of the ruling class itself. It's hard for people to realize they're being grifted when they can't even have a conversation without being scolded for breaking some constantly-shifting amorphous blob of contradicting rules.
> Trump's voters aren't going to just go away because the tech companies have banned them.
Agreed. They'll start to discover decentralization and p2p systems eventually, then they won't be able to be controlled at all. The cultural left (and I say "cultural" because the economic left is alive and well and still exists alongside this late identity craze) is making an error: you don't want to stamp out 100% of wrongthink, just 80% of it! If you try to do more, you risk entire networks forming ouside of your control. And this is what will happen, and they will lose ALL of their control.
This in itself might be a good thing. Although Trump's cult of personality might be damaging to the nation, they might end up forming communications infrastructures resistant to censorship, which might ultimately be a net-benefit to humanity.
I do have some thoughts on your post though.
> The wokies have increasingly demanded Mao-like public concessions from elites
Ultra-wokies are created by elites as a divisive mechanism of the working classes. There aren't workers anymore: there are oppressed black workers and privileged white workers. Round one: fight!
CRT and post-truth (whether on the cultural left or cultural right) are an arm of the ruling class itself. It's hard for people to realize they're being grifted when they can't even have a conversation without being scolded for breaking some constantly-shifting amorphous blob of contradicting rules.
> Trump's voters aren't going to just go away because the tech companies have banned them.
Agreed. They'll start to discover decentralization and p2p systems eventually, then they won't be able to be controlled at all. The cultural left (and I say "cultural" because the economic left is alive and well and still exists alongside this late identity craze) is making an error: you don't want to stamp out 100% of wrongthink, just 80% of it! If you try to do more, you risk entire networks forming ouside of your control. And this is what will happen, and they will lose ALL of their control.
This in itself might be a good thing. Although Trump's cult of personality might be damaging to the nation, they might end up forming communications infrastructures resistant to censorship, which might ultimately be a net-benefit to humanity.
I no longer think there is a sincere effort to reduce extremism.
When you view what platforms and governments are doing through the lens of their thinking they can create just enough managed extremism to use as a pretext for both crackdowns and further leverage, they are in fact succeeding magnificently.
The question isn't whether they will succeed at creating or suppressing extremism, but whether democratic governance will survive the hell they are about to unleash. When it all happens, remember to act surprised.
When you view what platforms and governments are doing through the lens of their thinking they can create just enough managed extremism to use as a pretext for both crackdowns and further leverage, they are in fact succeeding magnificently.
The question isn't whether they will succeed at creating or suppressing extremism, but whether democratic governance will survive the hell they are about to unleash. When it all happens, remember to act surprised.
There's advantage to promoting the imminent danger of an enemy in order to motivate voters to support your efforts to protect them from it. If the military doesn't have a big enemy, who needs a big military?
Pretty much every candidate for high office I can remember has run on a platform of fighting SOMETHING (nazis, communists, terrorists, socialists, crime, etc). Extremism is good for business, if your business is self-promotion.
Pretty much every candidate for high office I can remember has run on a platform of fighting SOMETHING (nazis, communists, terrorists, socialists, crime, etc). Extremism is good for business, if your business is self-promotion.
Let me ask a related question looking at it from the other direction: can you encourage an idea by spreading it more widely?
If not, then propaganda and advertising are both myths that don't really work.
If not, then propaganda and advertising are both myths that don't really work.
Related: can you make an idea more appealing to some people by contemning it?
Propaganda and advertising absolutely do work.
Chess set sales were up a huge percentage when the Queen's Gambit became popular. Daenerys became a somewhat popular baby girl's name after Game of Thrones became popular. These are super simple, super obvious examples, but you can find more.
They're not guaranteed to work, but they do work.
Chess set sales were up a huge percentage when the Queen's Gambit became popular. Daenerys became a somewhat popular baby girl's name after Game of Thrones became popular. These are super simple, super obvious examples, but you can find more.
They're not guaranteed to work, but they do work.
Today Scotland passed the wildly controversial hate crime bill. Thankfully the bill was amended several times which gutted many of the more extreme provisions. But I can tell you for a fact that people I know have been seriously preparing to go underground - they perceived this bill as such a serious threat to their freedom of speech and religious liberty that some where preparing to purchase property in remote locations to enable clandestine meetings, others started reading on encryption, etc.
Not one said “oh well, time to change my basic wordlview, since it might soon be illegal”.
Not one said “oh well, time to change my basic wordlview, since it might soon be illegal”.
I don’t think passing a law intends to change individual peoples’ worldview. I wasn’t able to find an article with a my example of things that would be prosecuted after the bill was passed that could be controversial, only hand-wavey claims.
I'm not a fan of cancel culture but this isn't a great argument against it. The question isn't whether cancellation can achieve complete eliminationist objectives, but whether it can prove useful at the margins in terms of achieving your political goals. I think the answer is likely "yes to some extent", although people are predictably biased to over or underestimate the overall effectiveness depending on whether they see censorship working for or against their causes or net.
My main pushback to cancel culture stuff is something of a "paradox of the paradox of tolerance" critique - that people are trying to use it as a cudgel to pretextually silence views that are well within the Overton window and that rather than this leading to the Overton window shifting (the desired effect) it will lead to pillarization, wherein multiple non-overlapping Overton windows will vie for cultural/political supremacy in ways that will not only lead (and have already lead) to very ugly conflicts, but involve massive amounts of time/energy being wasted on hot-button issues that in the grand scheme of things are just not very important.
My main pushback to cancel culture stuff is something of a "paradox of the paradox of tolerance" critique - that people are trying to use it as a cudgel to pretextually silence views that are well within the Overton window and that rather than this leading to the Overton window shifting (the desired effect) it will lead to pillarization, wherein multiple non-overlapping Overton windows will vie for cultural/political supremacy in ways that will not only lead (and have already lead) to very ugly conflicts, but involve massive amounts of time/energy being wasted on hot-button issues that in the grand scheme of things are just not very important.
Deplatforming it helps prevent it from normalizing in the community.
That is with the assumption that 1) the platforms are controllable and 2) those that control it vaugely align with your beliefs / morals.
No, just makes it edgier for the kids. Takes longer to crystalise but crystallises harder.
pii(1)
Censorship is the battleground, not the issue. The problem isn't censorship per se, it's the weaponization of it. Claiming you can or can't do something is merely projecting how one frames the debate. This issue still stands and the entire argument is moot.
When it comes to "unpopular" ideas and peoples, fear and moral superiority justifies:
censorship -> incarceration -> extermination
The path is plausible and logical if each previous step fails. And heck, the ends (protecting people from hate) justify the means, so why fret over it? I mean, what could go wrong?
censorship -> incarceration -> extermination
The path is plausible and logical if each previous step fails. And heck, the ends (protecting people from hate) justify the means, so why fret over it? I mean, what could go wrong?
I'm sympathetic to this argument in many ways. For one, extremist movements tend to thrive on oppression - being censored "proves" the system is rigged against them.
But the argument in this article is very flawed. For one, yes, Germany has a far right movement. The real question is, how influential would it be without all the legislation to suppress it?
Social norms matter, and legislation can reinforce those norms. It's important to pick the right battles, however. Laws can be used to create pressures against becoming e.g. a white supremacist as long as the majority of the population opposes that ideology. OTOH, try using laws to make people go vegan, and it's not going to go very well in the current situation.
But the argument in this article is very flawed. For one, yes, Germany has a far right movement. The real question is, how influential would it be without all the legislation to suppress it?
Social norms matter, and legislation can reinforce those norms. It's important to pick the right battles, however. Laws can be used to create pressures against becoming e.g. a white supremacist as long as the majority of the population opposes that ideology. OTOH, try using laws to make people go vegan, and it's not going to go very well in the current situation.
> The real question is, how influential would it be without all the legislation to suppress it?
I had exactly the same thought. The argument is deeply flawed.
> Social norms matter, and legislation can reinforce those norms.
Brexit is a great example for this phenomenon. Directly after the vote, xenophobia and homophobia increased significantly in the UK. It need not written into legislation, the signal of a common understanding is enough to change behaviour.
I had exactly the same thought. The argument is deeply flawed.
> Social norms matter, and legislation can reinforce those norms.
Brexit is a great example for this phenomenon. Directly after the vote, xenophobia and homophobia increased significantly in the UK. It need not written into legislation, the signal of a common understanding is enough to change behaviour.
Banning hate speech (even if it's whack-a-mole) also protects the victims.
1. It says that society (with the power to make laws) has your back. 2. It does what it can to prevent the environment from being toxic (obviously with limitations raised in the article).
1. It says that society (with the power to make laws) has your back. 2. It does what it can to prevent the environment from being toxic (obviously with limitations raised in the article).
I would also consider these people who have these extremist ideas victims.
Society has never had your back. In so many other areas including this one. What we have is interest groups as people within society. And these groups will always have different and sometimes directly opposing ideas.
Thinking that society or even the law has your back is an error in logic.
Again, about toxic social spaces. There is much reason to place Twitter & Facebook as toxic just as much as Parler was. Platforms aren't necessarily toxic, people are. And to be frank, this is a media consumption choice. If you unintentionally visit Gab today and feel the majority of the content does not align with your values and beliefs. Close the tab and visit another platform. Freedom of speech needs to encouraged in any modern society and should be protected as a human right. Anyone who tries to influence your thinking by diluting this, is seeking to control and weaken your mind for their own gain.
Society has never had your back. In so many other areas including this one. What we have is interest groups as people within society. And these groups will always have different and sometimes directly opposing ideas.
Thinking that society or even the law has your back is an error in logic.
Again, about toxic social spaces. There is much reason to place Twitter & Facebook as toxic just as much as Parler was. Platforms aren't necessarily toxic, people are. And to be frank, this is a media consumption choice. If you unintentionally visit Gab today and feel the majority of the content does not align with your values and beliefs. Close the tab and visit another platform. Freedom of speech needs to encouraged in any modern society and should be protected as a human right. Anyone who tries to influence your thinking by diluting this, is seeking to control and weaken your mind for their own gain.
> Look: the most powerful governments, militaries, and intelligence services in the world have in recent decades tried to prevent the communications of terrorist groups such as Al-Qaeda and ISIS, using the most sophisticated digital means possible and with the full backing of various publishing and social media platforms. And yet those organizations effortlessly shared their propaganda and their rhetoric and coordinated across distance all the same.
This isn't entirely true [1]:
> As of January 2015, ISIS had reconstituted its regional accounts with strong privacy settings, allowing only a small group of known ISIS supporters to follow the accounts and read their tweets. The content of the tweets—primarily news releases, videos and photos from ISIS’s various provinces—are then disseminated by a number of other smaller accounts using hashtags. After the initial dissemination, the content is more widely distributed, but at significantly reduced levels from early 2014.
> Despite this, the number of new accounts created dropped significantly after the first round of suspensions in September (section 2.5.4), and while we do not have complete data to make a positive assessment, it appears the pace of account creation has lagged behind the pace of suspensions.
Another study about the impacts of Twitter's more aggressive stance against ISIS found, "These findings support the notion that Twitter’s policy deteriorates IS followers’ ability to gain traction on the platform, likely hindering their reach to potential recruits. " [2].
A third study also concluded, "Our data showed that the costs for most pro-IS users of engaging on Twitter (in terms of deflated morale, diffused messages and persistent effort needed to maintain a public presence) now largely outweigh the benefits." [3].
Deplatforming seems to work to reduce the spread of extremist ideas, which then reduces the spread of extremist actions, based on the years of research we've apparently been doing on the topic prior to today. We can reasonably disagree on the philosophy (and this appears to largely be a think piece), but there are practical realities that cannot be ignored.
[1] https://www.brookings.edu/wp-content/uploads/2016/06/isis_tw...
[2] https://extremism.gwu.edu/sites/g/files/zaxdzs2191/f/Digital...
[3] https://www.researchgate.net/publication/319395856_DISRUPTIN...
[4] https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1348147867739975681.html <- where I found this info (there's more here I didn't add to this comment, all credit to @AmarAmarasingam for compiling this data)
This isn't entirely true [1]:
> As of January 2015, ISIS had reconstituted its regional accounts with strong privacy settings, allowing only a small group of known ISIS supporters to follow the accounts and read their tweets. The content of the tweets—primarily news releases, videos and photos from ISIS’s various provinces—are then disseminated by a number of other smaller accounts using hashtags. After the initial dissemination, the content is more widely distributed, but at significantly reduced levels from early 2014.
> Despite this, the number of new accounts created dropped significantly after the first round of suspensions in September (section 2.5.4), and while we do not have complete data to make a positive assessment, it appears the pace of account creation has lagged behind the pace of suspensions.
Another study about the impacts of Twitter's more aggressive stance against ISIS found, "These findings support the notion that Twitter’s policy deteriorates IS followers’ ability to gain traction on the platform, likely hindering their reach to potential recruits. " [2].
A third study also concluded, "Our data showed that the costs for most pro-IS users of engaging on Twitter (in terms of deflated morale, diffused messages and persistent effort needed to maintain a public presence) now largely outweigh the benefits." [3].
Deplatforming seems to work to reduce the spread of extremist ideas, which then reduces the spread of extremist actions, based on the years of research we've apparently been doing on the topic prior to today. We can reasonably disagree on the philosophy (and this appears to largely be a think piece), but there are practical realities that cannot be ignored.
[1] https://www.brookings.edu/wp-content/uploads/2016/06/isis_tw...
[2] https://extremism.gwu.edu/sites/g/files/zaxdzs2191/f/Digital...
[3] https://www.researchgate.net/publication/319395856_DISRUPTIN...
[4] https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1348147867739975681.html <- where I found this info (there's more here I didn't add to this comment, all credit to @AmarAmarasingam for compiling this data)
>As of January 2015, ISIS had reconstituted its regional accounts with strong privacy settings, allowing only a small group of known ISIS supporters to follow the accounts and read their tweets. The content of the tweets—primarily news releases, videos and photos from ISIS’s various provinces—are then disseminated by a number of other smaller accounts using hashtags. After the initial dissemination, the content is more widely distributed, but at significantly reduced levels from early 2014.
I'm sure detonating high explosives on their heads and putting bullets through most of them had nothing to do with it!
> Despite this, the number of new accounts created dropped significantly after the first round of suspensions in September (section 2.5.4), and while we do not have complete data to make a positive assessment, it appears the pace of account creation has lagged behind the pace of suspensions.
Lack of something doesn't prove it's gone. So they realized they couldn't use twitter. Did that change their views? Did it change their minds? Citing a lack of participation in a hostile platform proves nothing except that twitter controls twitter.
I'm sure detonating high explosives on their heads and putting bullets through most of them had nothing to do with it!
> Despite this, the number of new accounts created dropped significantly after the first round of suspensions in September (section 2.5.4), and while we do not have complete data to make a positive assessment, it appears the pace of account creation has lagged behind the pace of suspensions.
Lack of something doesn't prove it's gone. So they realized they couldn't use twitter. Did that change their views? Did it change their minds? Citing a lack of participation in a hostile platform proves nothing except that twitter controls twitter.
[deleted]
These are very good examples, but we just witnessed an even better one: Trump has been, for all practical purposes, entirely silenced, simply because Twitter deplatformed him.
Because he didn't go anywhere else. He could have joined Parler or Gab and continued drawing attention.
He did, and is.
Just because you only pay attention to mainstream (D) media doesn't mean he's not on others.
Just because you only pay attention to mainstream (D) media doesn't mean he's not on others.
Donald Trump did not join Parler or Gab.
https://gab.com/realDonaldTrump
edit: should have done my own research better, the profile reads:
>Reserved for the 45th President of the United States of America🇺🇸 This account is an uncensored Twitter archive and shares email statements sent by The Office of Donald J. Trump.
AFAIK Trump isn't on gab.
edit: should have done my own research better, the profile reads:
>Reserved for the 45th President of the United States of America🇺🇸 This account is an uncensored Twitter archive and shares email statements sent by The Office of Donald J. Trump.
AFAIK Trump isn't on gab.
[deleted]
Trump spoke at CPAC. Press covered it.
It's almost likeky that no one will read this, but for what it's worth the main thing is understanding.
Ask your opposite "why do I think like this".
Seems to me, that, at least in the commentaries, that the right understands why someone is left than the left understands why someone is right.
10 years ago the left wing understood things. Now they just label and other their opposition
Ask your opposite "why do I think like this".
Seems to me, that, at least in the commentaries, that the right understands why someone is left than the left understands why someone is right.
10 years ago the left wing understood things. Now they just label and other their opposition
um dumb stuff ...this time... dumb people... damned P-:
1st.) There is a mechanism in conflict: 'crimination' (Schuldzuweisungen) => 'justification' (Rechtfertigungen) => 'to order sombody to be quiet', censoring maybe ditiching somebody (den Mund verbieten) +[vary]; recursion
Now while practicing, 'censoring ?' The hatecrime-testspecimens calcitrate: "No! this is the so called 'harmonisation' of contents", not ?
(Disclaimer: 'explicit' and a little OT) The Coach asks: 'This time obsession, do you bought all the emotional stuff ?' ^^
1st.) There is a mechanism in conflict: 'crimination' (Schuldzuweisungen) => 'justification' (Rechtfertigungen) => 'to order sombody to be quiet', censoring maybe ditiching somebody (den Mund verbieten) +[vary]; recursion
Now while practicing, 'censoring ?' The hatecrime-testspecimens calcitrate: "No! this is the so called 'harmonisation' of contents", not ?
(Disclaimer: 'explicit' and a little OT) The Coach asks: 'This time obsession, do you bought all the emotional stuff ?' ^^
Is there something better than censorship?
I mean, if you just gotta control that information. Gatekeeping at main choke-point. Censorship. Seems like the hamhanded option.
I like a voting system. Information rated and filtered according to trusted peers.
I guess that's the same as HN's voting, but you'd be voting on the voters too.
And of course we could also vote in more sophisticated ways than simply good-bad. But that might get laborious.
I mean, if you just gotta control that information. Gatekeeping at main choke-point. Censorship. Seems like the hamhanded option.
I like a voting system. Information rated and filtered according to trusted peers.
I guess that's the same as HN's voting, but you'd be voting on the voters too.
And of course we could also vote in more sophisticated ways than simply good-bad. But that might get laborious.
I thought it was more to hinder further recruitment because allowing it is much like giving it weight and making it seem normal. By minimizing it's exposure it both acts as a reminder that "that isn't normal or acceptable" and by banning it it cuts down on potential recruitment.
Deplatforming is not censorship.
It is declining to sell someone a megaphone.
In particular: it is declining to assist in the amplification of targeted and tuned disinformation.
Our society has very few tools against weaponized big data.
Declining to amplify disinformation is one that is actually effective and easy.
It is declining to sell someone a megaphone.
In particular: it is declining to assist in the amplification of targeted and tuned disinformation.
Our society has very few tools against weaponized big data.
Declining to amplify disinformation is one that is actually effective and easy.
[deleted]
For an essay that focuses on empiricism to answer questions, this one is sorely missing counterfactuals. We have:
> Luckily we have international precedent to help us answer those questions. Do they support the idea that hate speech law stops hate, far-right extremism, fascism?
and then the study of Germany and France, which both have the laws, and where the situation is relatively bad. But without an attempto to compare the situation in countries with relevant laws to those which don't have them, how can we attribute the result to those laws?
> Luckily we have international precedent to help us answer those questions. Do they support the idea that hate speech law stops hate, far-right extremism, fascism?
and then the study of Germany and France, which both have the laws, and where the situation is relatively bad. But without an attempto to compare the situation in countries with relevant laws to those which don't have them, how can we attribute the result to those laws?
[deleted]
>Federal prosecutors and the Ministry of the Interior regularly move against organizations deemed far-right or hate groups.
On the contrary, the Verfassungschutz and other federal organisations built to work against enemies of the state support the enemies of the state! And that is where the 'vast and varied far-right network' comes from, it's supported by tax money.
The Verfassungsschutz is a special intelligence agency observing enemies of democray, which includes neonazis and the like. This agency uses 'V-Maenner', which is a network of paid informers within these structures.
In 2013, every fourth criminally active neonazi V-mann was receiving state payments: https://web.archive.org/web/20130405050440/http://www.tagess...
When the NSU murdered people in Germany, V-mann informants used the money paid for them by the state to support the group (https://www.zeit.de/gesellschaft/zeitgeschehen/2018-02/nsu-a... ).
Early 2000 Germany tried to outlaw the NPD, the then-biggest far-right political party. The outlaw process failed because the Verfassungschutz had too many of its members in the party's rank, so the judges could not say which party activities were anti-democratic, or what was the government's own doing ('fehlende Staatsferne' - not enough distance from the state).
Because the state taxes itself a measly 10% on these payments we have a rough idea on how much they pay - Tino Brandt, one of the NPD's party functionaries in Thuringia, received 200,000 DM over 6 years until 2001. In the same state alone (remember, Germany has 16 states) in the same time the government paid out 1.5 million DM.
The last head of the agency, Hans-Georg Maassen, is now retired after it became apparent that he was ignoring evidence. He has since opened a Twitter account where he's spouting Fox News-level far right nonsense. This was the head of the agency 2012 to 2018.
The OP's whole argument falls down if you consider that the German state is saying they're fighting Nazis but then they go and fund them very well with tax-money. It would be much easier to fight Nazis if they wouldn't get millions in funding.
On the contrary, the Verfassungschutz and other federal organisations built to work against enemies of the state support the enemies of the state! And that is where the 'vast and varied far-right network' comes from, it's supported by tax money.
The Verfassungsschutz is a special intelligence agency observing enemies of democray, which includes neonazis and the like. This agency uses 'V-Maenner', which is a network of paid informers within these structures.
In 2013, every fourth criminally active neonazi V-mann was receiving state payments: https://web.archive.org/web/20130405050440/http://www.tagess...
When the NSU murdered people in Germany, V-mann informants used the money paid for them by the state to support the group (https://www.zeit.de/gesellschaft/zeitgeschehen/2018-02/nsu-a... ).
Early 2000 Germany tried to outlaw the NPD, the then-biggest far-right political party. The outlaw process failed because the Verfassungschutz had too many of its members in the party's rank, so the judges could not say which party activities were anti-democratic, or what was the government's own doing ('fehlende Staatsferne' - not enough distance from the state).
Because the state taxes itself a measly 10% on these payments we have a rough idea on how much they pay - Tino Brandt, one of the NPD's party functionaries in Thuringia, received 200,000 DM over 6 years until 2001. In the same state alone (remember, Germany has 16 states) in the same time the government paid out 1.5 million DM.
The last head of the agency, Hans-Georg Maassen, is now retired after it became apparent that he was ignoring evidence. He has since opened a Twitter account where he's spouting Fox News-level far right nonsense. This was the head of the agency 2012 to 2018.
The OP's whole argument falls down if you consider that the German state is saying they're fighting Nazis but then they go and fund them very well with tax-money. It would be much easier to fight Nazis if they wouldn't get millions in funding.
> The OP's whole argument falls down if you consider that the German state is saying they're fighting Nazis but then they go and fund them very well with tax-money. It would be much easier to fight Nazis if they wouldn't get millions in funding.
How does this do anything but support the OP's argument? OP argues that hate speech laws are futile because those in power get to decide what is hate speech and how it is enforced and it is always possible for the wrong people to be in power. Has-Geog Maassen and the overall failure you highlighted seems like a perfect example of this seeming inevitability in practice.
How does this do anything but support the OP's argument? OP argues that hate speech laws are futile because those in power get to decide what is hate speech and how it is enforced and it is always possible for the wrong people to be in power. Has-Geog Maassen and the overall failure you highlighted seems like a perfect example of this seeming inevitability in practice.
Analogy that Americans won’t understand, “You can’t stop firearms deaths by banning guns.”
[deleted]
[deleted]
An analysis of what is efficacious for opposing "extremism" is pointless without also looking at the cause(s) of that "extremism" or being able to identify natural experiments.
Natural experiments: looking at Germany and noticing that there are still lots of Nazis doesn't mean those interventions were not effective, as you don't know what would've happened using other regimes (or just doing nothing). You haven't tested the most basic alternative hypothesis that would confound using this data in this way.
Causes: this is a big can of worms, particularly on a forum where "politics" is frowned upon, which really means that anything non-normative that could cause significant disagreement is frowned upon. But unless you can identify driving forces of, e.g., Nazis and their recruitment, talking about effective interventions is premature and reductive.
Natural experiments: looking at Germany and noticing that there are still lots of Nazis doesn't mean those interventions were not effective, as you don't know what would've happened using other regimes (or just doing nothing). You haven't tested the most basic alternative hypothesis that would confound using this data in this way.
Causes: this is a big can of worms, particularly on a forum where "politics" is frowned upon, which really means that anything non-normative that could cause significant disagreement is frowned upon. But unless you can identify driving forces of, e.g., Nazis and their recruitment, talking about effective interventions is premature and reductive.
if censoring assholes doesn't work then tell me how come we haven't heard anything from donald trump in months? because he doesn't have a major platform anymore.
[deleted]
This clip from cobra kai really made me rethink censorship for some reason: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X8VGzyy5FTY
you can. North korea is a good example.
You may not be able to censor away extremism, but you can prevent them from organizing violence at your kitchen table.
[deleted]
Eliminate? No.
Reduce to the point of practical irrelevance? Yep.
Deplatforming works.
Reduce to the point of practical irrelevance? Yep.
Deplatforming works.
Deplatforming solves a problem. And only temporarily in the abundance of VPN & encrypted technologies. IMO it makes things even worse since these groups will congregate in secret much further away from the public eye where they can perpetuate unbalanced and unhealthy ideas.
> IMO it makes things even worse since these groups will congregate in secret much further away from the public eye where they can perpetuate unbalanced and unhealthy ideas.
That result makes it more difficult for law enforcement to follow their movements, but it also has the effect of making it more difficult to recruit new members and spread their ideas.
The whole reason social media has been so powerful in spreading ideas, good and bad, is because it reduces communication friction and effort while promoting discoverability. If extremists have to move to Signal and Telegram, it makes them less discoverable, and requires more effort on the part of their members. Over time that makes it less likely they'll be able to grow or maintain their numbers.
That result makes it more difficult for law enforcement to follow their movements, but it also has the effect of making it more difficult to recruit new members and spread their ideas.
The whole reason social media has been so powerful in spreading ideas, good and bad, is because it reduces communication friction and effort while promoting discoverability. If extremists have to move to Signal and Telegram, it makes them less discoverable, and requires more effort on the part of their members. Over time that makes it less likely they'll be able to grow or maintain their numbers.
[deleted]
> That result makes it more difficult for law enforcement to follow their movements
The easiest enemy to go after is an exposed one. The 2nd is a weak one.
> extremists have to move to Signal and Telegram, it makes them less discoverable
Extremist groups do not need to be discoverable. They just need to plant enough conviction into the minds of susceptible and willing hosts. I assure you, not so much energy is required to convert in this case. Certainly not more than religious ones.
Though I need to clarify. When extremism crosses the border of advocating for mass violence. It gains a new universally unambiguous term: terrorism.
The easiest enemy to go after is an exposed one. The 2nd is a weak one.
> extremists have to move to Signal and Telegram, it makes them less discoverable
Extremist groups do not need to be discoverable. They just need to plant enough conviction into the minds of susceptible and willing hosts. I assure you, not so much energy is required to convert in this case. Certainly not more than religious ones.
Though I need to clarify. When extremism crosses the border of advocating for mass violence. It gains a new universally unambiguous term: terrorism.
If it made things "worse" they why are they not already doing those things?
These groups want to be on public platforms because their goal is to radicalize people. Or do you think that it was a mistake to kick ISIS and other radical Islam groups off Twitter too?
These groups want to be on public platforms because their goal is to radicalize people. Or do you think that it was a mistake to kick ISIS and other radical Islam groups off Twitter too?
> If it made things "worse" they why are they not already doing those things?
What do you mean by your statement "not doing those things"?
I hope you know talking about doing something,,, actually doing something,,, and getting caught in the act of doing the "something" are ALL different situations in themselves.
How on earth is equating ISIS members to Gab or even Parler users even remotely the same? It either means you are not aware of the real issue at hand or you seem to have a personal biasness against different political views to yourself.
My point is, Twitter accounts or not, normal (please double bold this word as you read this) people who hold different unpopular views should have the space and freedom to speak their minds.
Unfortunately freedom of speech is a black and white affair. If twitter as a platform doesn't allow their users to legally exercise this right, they might as well come out and freely state they are partisan and include this in their policy. Rather than pretend to be something they are not.
Note: Terrorism is criminalized and well-defined within most state laws. My argument is not in defence of this.
What do you mean by your statement "not doing those things"?
I hope you know talking about doing something,,, actually doing something,,, and getting caught in the act of doing the "something" are ALL different situations in themselves.
How on earth is equating ISIS members to Gab or even Parler users even remotely the same? It either means you are not aware of the real issue at hand or you seem to have a personal biasness against different political views to yourself.
My point is, Twitter accounts or not, normal (please double bold this word as you read this) people who hold different unpopular views should have the space and freedom to speak their minds.
Unfortunately freedom of speech is a black and white affair. If twitter as a platform doesn't allow their users to legally exercise this right, they might as well come out and freely state they are partisan and include this in their policy. Rather than pretend to be something they are not.
Note: Terrorism is criminalized and well-defined within most state laws. My argument is not in defence of this.
> Deplatforming solves a problem.
Yep!
> IMO it makes things even worse since these groups will congregate in secret much further away from the public eye where they can perpetuate unbalanced and unhealthy ideas.
The whole point of deplatforming is to prevent those stupid ideas from having a general audience. Sunlight is not always the best disinfectant.
Yep!
> IMO it makes things even worse since these groups will congregate in secret much further away from the public eye where they can perpetuate unbalanced and unhealthy ideas.
The whole point of deplatforming is to prevent those stupid ideas from having a general audience. Sunlight is not always the best disinfectant.
The minute your platform becomes malevolent, and begins to "work" against your values, will you not regret granting it the power of moderating the social discourse?
What power? When in the history of the internet has a website's owner been unable to edit or remove the text that's published on their own site?
It works....in the short term...within a very narrow scope.
And then suddenly, for no reason at all, someone incredibly well aligned with everyone you deplatformed rises to power.
And then suddenly, for no reason at all, someone incredibly well aligned with everyone you deplatformed rises to power.
They don't rise to power if the political system is sane. In many countries without First Past the Post systems, an extremist rises in popularity. Then when the final vote comes, it is revealed that most people are moderate and the crazy does not get into power.
Is there a sane political system?
FPTP is dogshit, agreed. But does even ranked choice voting result in a sane system? I'm not implying it can't. I honestly just don't know.
FPTP is dogshit, agreed. But does even ranked choice voting result in a sane system? I'm not implying it can't. I honestly just don't know.
No system is completely sane but some are better than others at keeping out the loonies :-)
European ones are decent.
European ones are decent.
What if we starting deplatforming Jews or reducing Jewish influence to the point of pratical irrelevance? Would that be okay?
No, obviously it would not be okay. What point are you trying to make?
So, deplatforming (silencing) a group is okay, but doing the same for other group is not okay based on some arbitrary criteria.
> So, deplatforming (silencing) a group is okay, but doing the same for other group is not okay based on some arbitrary criteria.
This is such a lazy argument, because it's trivially defeated. Yes. Exactly this. In the same way that e.g. jailing one group (the guilty) is okay, but doing the same for another group (the innocent) is not okay.
This is such a lazy argument, because it's trivially defeated. Yes. Exactly this. In the same way that e.g. jailing one group (the guilty) is okay, but doing the same for another group (the innocent) is not okay.
It's ok to kiss your spouse but not a stranger. It's ok to punch someone who punched you but dont go to a kindergarten and start punching kids.
"Arbitrary criteria" describes all norms.
"Arbitrary criteria" describes all norms.
"everything means nothing yada yada yada"
You know exactly what I mean, cut the bullshit. Point being, deplatforming may be okay for the group who exercises it, but not for the group that is being deplatformed. Who the fuck decides? The government? Some out of touch Big Tech CEOs? Fuck that.
Just take a look at Venezuela's current "Law against Hatred" (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_against_Hatred)to get an idea of how dumb this whole approach is.
Now, if I'd be willing to argue that this is a antitrust issue (FB, TW, Google / Amazon AWS, CloudFlare / PayPal, Stripe / Visa, MasterCard) having too much power to the point that they decide whether you live or not, and that there should be way more alternatives.
You know exactly what I mean, cut the bullshit. Point being, deplatforming may be okay for the group who exercises it, but not for the group that is being deplatformed. Who the fuck decides? The government? Some out of touch Big Tech CEOs? Fuck that.
Just take a look at Venezuela's current "Law against Hatred" (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_against_Hatred)to get an idea of how dumb this whole approach is.
Now, if I'd be willing to argue that this is a antitrust issue (FB, TW, Google / Amazon AWS, CloudFlare / PayPal, Stripe / Visa, MasterCard) having too much power to the point that they decide whether you live or not, and that there should be way more alternatives.
It is entirely and issue of the means of communication being concentrated into the hands of a few powerful organizations, like its been since the radio was captured by capitalist regulation.
> Who the fuck decides? Everyone decides norms in the small bubble around them. When people organize their influence grows too. Some people have too much power. Some people should never have power, like nazis.
A lot of the arguments in this thread you will notice are about whether deplatforming makes nazis less nazis. Well, that's not the point. The point is to make sure they aren't accepted, that they can't use the public square to recruit and gain power.
Some would argue that this is ineffective, but they are now stuck in the bind of thinking that access to places of public discourse is both an important right and also practically unimportant.
Maybe they're too young to remember the holocaust deniers on use usenet or how ineffectual stormfront was before 4chan and before mass social media. People who are hungry for power will try to gain it in the easiest ways possible.
If you think them having power would suck, then you want to make it harder for them.
I simultaneously think facebook and twitter and CBS and fox news etc. have too much control over public discourse and also don't want white supremacists to be able to freely use that power to bring back hell on earth. That includes the new york times giving the likes of Richard Spencer space on their page, Tucker Carlson crying about how much white people are under attack and facebook letting white supremacists run recruiting groups thousands in size.
> Who the fuck decides? Everyone decides norms in the small bubble around them. When people organize their influence grows too. Some people have too much power. Some people should never have power, like nazis.
A lot of the arguments in this thread you will notice are about whether deplatforming makes nazis less nazis. Well, that's not the point. The point is to make sure they aren't accepted, that they can't use the public square to recruit and gain power.
Some would argue that this is ineffective, but they are now stuck in the bind of thinking that access to places of public discourse is both an important right and also practically unimportant.
Maybe they're too young to remember the holocaust deniers on use usenet or how ineffectual stormfront was before 4chan and before mass social media. People who are hungry for power will try to gain it in the easiest ways possible.
If you think them having power would suck, then you want to make it harder for them.
I simultaneously think facebook and twitter and CBS and fox news etc. have too much control over public discourse and also don't want white supremacists to be able to freely use that power to bring back hell on earth. That includes the new york times giving the likes of Richard Spencer space on their page, Tucker Carlson crying about how much white people are under attack and facebook letting white supremacists run recruiting groups thousands in size.
> Some people should never have power, like nazis.
That's exactly what I'm arguing against. That's just your opinion and you treat it like some universal axiom. Same way you treat 'Holocaust deniers' as some kind of monstrous apparitions. You may not agree, that's all.
It's people like you that inspire me to counteract this trend with full force.
That's exactly what I'm arguing against. That's just your opinion and you treat it like some universal axiom. Same way you treat 'Holocaust deniers' as some kind of monstrous apparitions. You may not agree, that's all.
It's people like you that inspire me to counteract this trend with full force.
It's not an axiom. It's a fundamental disagreement about how society should be and an understanding of what the world would be like if nazis have the power to change it to suit their vision.
> It's people like you that inspire me to counteract this trend with full force.
What does that look like? What actual effects on the world do you try to make or support others making because I am opposed to fascism?
> It's people like you that inspire me to counteract this trend with full force.
What does that look like? What actual effects on the world do you try to make or support others making because I am opposed to fascism?
> fundamental disagreement about how society should be
We may not agree, but we can't say it's a "fundamental disagreement" if there's so much people rooting for it.
> What does that look like?
1) Disagreeing with people online 2) Opening niche internet forums that are lax on moderation (except for illegal content such as child pornography and direct threats) 3) Investing in hosting/domain registrars/payment processors that don't deplatform because of political stance (e.g., Epik, SkySilk)
I've been doing 1) and 2) for some time now, but I want to do 3) as well. I think it will become very profitable during this decade.
We may not agree, but we can't say it's a "fundamental disagreement" if there's so much people rooting for it.
> What does that look like?
1) Disagreeing with people online 2) Opening niche internet forums that are lax on moderation (except for illegal content such as child pornography and direct threats) 3) Investing in hosting/domain registrars/payment processors that don't deplatform because of political stance (e.g., Epik, SkySilk)
I've been doing 1) and 2) for some time now, but I want to do 3) as well. I think it will become very profitable during this decade.
[deleted]
He claims Weimar Germany is an example of failed hate speech laws, but that's a weird claim, since they didn't enforce them (certainly not against Nazis).
Then he has an impassioned section where he claims the hate speech laws from '45 failed. The laws that date back to denazification! But he writes them off, with an exclamation mark, as an utter failure since some people in Germany, 75 years later support the far right. That rather moves the goal posts.
Then he has an impassioned section where he claims the hate speech laws from '45 failed. The laws that date back to denazification! But he writes them off, with an exclamation mark, as an utter failure since some people in Germany, 75 years later support the far right. That rather moves the goal posts.
I feel like the author should consider the /actual/ alternative.. Jobbik, etc with real governing power in places that do not "censor" instead of citing 13% support for fascism in France.
It is a complex issue, but censorship does "do" something, lots of research out there about how making things like QAnon just a little harder to access trims off support at the edges. If you want to make this argument you have to reckon with those facts.
It is a complex issue, but censorship does "do" something, lots of research out there about how making things like QAnon just a little harder to access trims off support at the edges. If you want to make this argument you have to reckon with those facts.
Ctrl+F "Popper" - zero results found.
If you don't provide a cogent counterargument to Karl Popper's paradox of tolerance, I can't take an essay like this seriously. Simply throwing up your hands and saying, "hate exists, let it rain free on the marketplace of ideas" is ... well, not worth a lot.
Also, I love the absence of evidence = evidence of absence argument:
* Germans have stringent anti-hate speech laws * ... yet there are still German extremists!
... and what if the laws were not so stringent?
If you don't provide a cogent counterargument to Karl Popper's paradox of tolerance, I can't take an essay like this seriously. Simply throwing up your hands and saying, "hate exists, let it rain free on the marketplace of ideas" is ... well, not worth a lot.
Also, I love the absence of evidence = evidence of absence argument:
* Germans have stringent anti-hate speech laws * ... yet there are still German extremists!
... and what if the laws were not so stringent?
> * Germans have stringent anti-hate speech laws * ... yet there are still German extremists!
Yeah I found that a bit of a strange point. I don't think the goal of Germany's anti-hate laws was to magically and completely eradicate extremism. It was to prevent them from getting powerful enough to take Germany back down the path to darkness that they did during the Third Reich.
Not to say that I think their model should replicated or exported, just that I don't think that's right lens to view it through. Just like saying, 'Well the Civil Rights Act didn't eradicate racism, what's the point?'
Yeah I found that a bit of a strange point. I don't think the goal of Germany's anti-hate laws was to magically and completely eradicate extremism. It was to prevent them from getting powerful enough to take Germany back down the path to darkness that they did during the Third Reich.
Not to say that I think their model should replicated or exported, just that I don't think that's right lens to view it through. Just like saying, 'Well the Civil Rights Act didn't eradicate racism, what's the point?'
The Popper part is easy: In the 1970s, during the student revolts, many right leaning people (who would be called fascists these days) got platforms on talk shows and politely debated their left wing counterparts.
It did not lead to the Fourth Reich, on the contrary, public opinion has shifted to the left in and after the 70s.
The right wing backlash you see now is a direct result of the insanity and totalitarianism of today's "left", which is really a smoke screen for the corporate-directed suppression of the middle classes (both black and white).
This Popper statement, made in a completely different era, is overused to shut down opponents and justify censorship.
It did not lead to the Fourth Reich, on the contrary, public opinion has shifted to the left in and after the 70s.
The right wing backlash you see now is a direct result of the insanity and totalitarianism of today's "left", which is really a smoke screen for the corporate-directed suppression of the middle classes (both black and white).
This Popper statement, made in a completely different era, is overused to shut down opponents and justify censorship.
You can draw a line from rush limbaugh to tuker carlson, they built a legion of people who they encouraged not to think for themselves and now they are sicking them on the world
>insanity and totalitarianism
citation needed? Thats literally the same line limbaugh used in the 70s
>insanity and totalitarianism
citation needed? Thats literally the same line limbaugh used in the 70s
Would you please stop perpetuating flamewar and posting low-quality ideological battle comments to HN? You've been doing a ton of it on HN, unfortunately, and it's not what this site is for. Regardless of how right your underlying positions are or you feel they are, discussion here needs to be better than this.
https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
Is there any actual evidence that the paradox of tolerance is correct? I suspect people stopped taking it seriously (and mentioning it in discussions on speech) because it’s advocates always seem to expect everyone to take it on faith, instead of providing a real argument to support their claims.
> "Is there any actual evidence that the paradox of tolerance is correct?"
Nope, it's just a sound bite that people latched on to that supports their pre-existing beliefs, even though it's just one philosopher's opinion. Despite the fact that they're appealing to Popper's authority, most people using can't even name the book that Popper wrote that in, let alone any of his other philosophical stances.
That's why I say that there's a Meta-Paradox of Intolerance: "Those who quote Popper's Paradox of Intolerance are usually merely seeking to use it to justify their own intolerance, paradoxically identifying themselves as among those whom the Paradox of Intolerance warns us against."
Nope, it's just a sound bite that people latched on to that supports their pre-existing beliefs, even though it's just one philosopher's opinion. Despite the fact that they're appealing to Popper's authority, most people using can't even name the book that Popper wrote that in, let alone any of his other philosophical stances.
That's why I say that there's a Meta-Paradox of Intolerance: "Those who quote Popper's Paradox of Intolerance are usually merely seeking to use it to justify their own intolerance, paradoxically identifying themselves as among those whom the Paradox of Intolerance warns us against."
Ironically, I could even cite Popper's Paradox of Tolerance as itself problematic: the more I tolerate the use of that philosophical argument, the more likely we are to lose the ability to freely express ourselves, therefore we ought to ban its use.
It's a circular argument that assumes its premise is correct a priori without any proof.
It's a circular argument that assumes its premise is correct a priori without any proof.
Popper's book is more philosophical than historical, and I'm as annoyed with people who only know one soundbite from it as the next guy, but over time I've come to believe that the paradox encodes an important truth: there's no reason for me to support freedom of speech for those who don't support mine. Maybe the way of the future is something like Substack, groups of people who say "we'll protect each other's right to speak freely, but if you want to enjoy our protection too, you must contribute materially". Without such coordination, there's no point playing the good soldier in favor of free speech for everyone. Freedom for those who care enough to coordinate is the only way freedom ever worked.
"there's no reason for me to support freedom of speech for those who don't support mine."
Tit for tat free speech. That's interesting. Reminds me a bit of the GPL, honestly.
Thanks for posting, I'm going to reflect on this idea and it's ramifications.
Tit for tat free speech. That's interesting. Reminds me a bit of the GPL, honestly.
Thanks for posting, I'm going to reflect on this idea and it's ramifications.
To me it's like leaving cancer unchecked, and praying it'll go away. Just because you dislike it. There needs to be a point at which we collectively go, nope that's too far. You're done. And we prune back the cancer.
The irony of the paradox of intolerance is that Popper defines it in the context of physically violent and irrational intolerance:
"But we should claim the right to suppress them if necessary even by force; for it may easily turn out that they are not prepared to meet us on the level of rational argument, but begin by denouncing all argument; they may forbid their followers to listen to rational argument, because it is deceptive, and teach them to answer arguments by the use of their fists or pistols."
Most citations of Popper's paradox are used, however, to justify suppression of "dangerous" ideas with very indirect and nebulous notions of harm on the level of social contagion. So the irony is that modern uses of the paradox is intolerance beyond acceptable limits for Popper.Or, in other words, in a society with a developed norm for tolerance, the intolerant can only resort to the paradox to censor ideas as long as people just believe the paradox naively and don't take a careful look at the potential harm caused.
"But we should claim the right to suppress them if necessary even by force; for it may easily turn out that they are not prepared to meet us on the level of rational argument, but begin by denouncing all argument; they may forbid their followers to listen to rational argument, because it is deceptive, and teach them to answer arguments by the use of their fists or pistols."
Most citations of Popper's paradox are used, however, to justify suppression of "dangerous" ideas with very indirect and nebulous notions of harm on the level of social contagion. So the irony is that modern uses of the paradox is intolerance beyond acceptable limits for Popper.Or, in other words, in a society with a developed norm for tolerance, the intolerant can only resort to the paradox to censor ideas as long as people just believe the paradox naively and don't take a careful look at the potential harm caused.
I keep running into "but who are the intolerant people these days?"
The J K Rowling mess as an example: clearly someone historically very tolerant. Writes some articles about some areas where she disagrees with the current thinking. Is immediately cancelled. I don't see much tolerance there? Who, exactly, is being intolerant here? Or is it just everyone? Maybe I should not tolerate this any more?
We've totally lost the ability to have a civil discussion about anything with anyone where the participants can disagree about the subject. Part of this, I'm convinced, is that social media doesn't actually allow a discussion. Everyone is screaming in the town square.
The J K Rowling mess as an example: clearly someone historically very tolerant. Writes some articles about some areas where she disagrees with the current thinking. Is immediately cancelled. I don't see much tolerance there? Who, exactly, is being intolerant here? Or is it just everyone? Maybe I should not tolerate this any more?
We've totally lost the ability to have a civil discussion about anything with anyone where the participants can disagree about the subject. Part of this, I'm convinced, is that social media doesn't actually allow a discussion. Everyone is screaming in the town square.
We haven’t totally lost the ability to have a civil discussion, we’ve just for some reason raised the stakes to mean that we should be able to have a civil discussion in a forum of hundreds of people, behind screens. Civil discussion exists plenty in smaller forums, like group chats and discords and slacks where people care about being civil.
[On the internet, people aren't afraid of getting punched in the mouth] - Mike Tyson
AshWolfy(1)
The "paradox of tolerance" states that a tolerant society must be intolerant of intolerance or else it will become an intolerant society.
That idea is frequently abused by people who don't know what tolerance is. These people conflate "tolerance" and "approval". What they actually oppose is disapproval (they only disapprove of people who disaprove). For them, being "against homosexuality" is intolerant. "Preferring Christianity to Islam" is intolerant. "Making a distinction between trans women and biological women" is intolerant. But this is all wrong. Tolerance is only possible in the presence of disapproval. To tolerate something is to put up with it.
A devout Christian who considers homosexuality a sin but who works with, is friends with, is neighbors with a gay couple is an example of tolerance. He doesn't like homosexuality but he puts up with it.
An example of intolerance is someone who tries to "deplatform" other people for disapproving of this or that. People can approve or disapprove of whatever they like. The qustion is whether they put up with it. As long as they do, they are tolerant.
That idea is frequently abused by people who don't know what tolerance is. These people conflate "tolerance" and "approval". What they actually oppose is disapproval (they only disapprove of people who disaprove). For them, being "against homosexuality" is intolerant. "Preferring Christianity to Islam" is intolerant. "Making a distinction between trans women and biological women" is intolerant. But this is all wrong. Tolerance is only possible in the presence of disapproval. To tolerate something is to put up with it.
A devout Christian who considers homosexuality a sin but who works with, is friends with, is neighbors with a gay couple is an example of tolerance. He doesn't like homosexuality but he puts up with it.
An example of intolerance is someone who tries to "deplatform" other people for disapproving of this or that. People can approve or disapprove of whatever they like. The qustion is whether they put up with it. As long as they do, they are tolerant.
So hatred is only hatred if you act on it?
There's a distinction to be made between disapproval and hatred. But there's plenty of both to go around.
Neither of them are synonymous with intolerance.
Neither of them are synonymous with intolerance.
I can't take your argument seriously. Simply throwing up your hands and saying, "This theory exists, but it wasn't addressed in the article!" is ... well, not worth a lot.
The paradox of tolerance is simply factually incorrect when it comes to speech. The existence of intolerant speech doesn't exclude anyone. People who are offended don't have to listen. The paradox of tolerance only exists when people or groups are taking action to exclude others. And we don't have blanket tolerance for actions, only for speech. Someone is free to talk the talk of intolerance, but the moment talk turns into action the law swoops in and takes them away.
In short, the paradox of tolerance doesn't hold true at all when we're talking about blanket freedom of speech. If we were talking about anarchy, blanket freedom not just of speech but of actions, then yes the paradox of tolerance comes into play. Some
In short, the paradox of tolerance doesn't hold true at all when we're talking about blanket freedom of speech. If we were talking about anarchy, blanket freedom not just of speech but of actions, then yes the paradox of tolerance comes into play. Some
"The existence of intolerant speech doesn't exclude anyone."
Except people who want to draw certain cartoons.
Do you even think through your statements?
Except people who want to draw certain cartoons.
Do you even think through your statements?
Like most of these rants against "censorship" they skip over people's rights to restrict speech as a form of speech itself: there is no moral (or legal) right to give people you disagree with a forum or audience to express their view.
Calling to silence others (that is, encouraging them to take your view of not giving them an audience) is fine as long as people have a choice on how to respond.
If there is some notion that we have no choice but to enable other's views then our own views become secondary to them. We no longer have absolute control over expressing the views we agree or disagree with.
Is the government or some other absolute authority censoring wrong? Yes. Are powerful monopolies (or near monopolies) wrong to censor? No, because they have the same speech rights as others, the problem there lies in the market power of the monopolies, not their speech.
Calling to silence others (that is, encouraging them to take your view of not giving them an audience) is fine as long as people have a choice on how to respond.
If there is some notion that we have no choice but to enable other's views then our own views become secondary to them. We no longer have absolute control over expressing the views we agree or disagree with.
Is the government or some other absolute authority censoring wrong? Yes. Are powerful monopolies (or near monopolies) wrong to censor? No, because they have the same speech rights as others, the problem there lies in the market power of the monopolies, not their speech.
“Free speech” in the moral sense is exactly that people who operate civil infrastructure shouldn’t use their privilege for censorship.
So... people who believe in “free speech” as a moral value will disagree with your first paragraph — and hence, your entire post.
You assume your conclusion, so your argument fails to be persuasive.
“I disagree with what you say, but I’ll fight to the death to defend your right to say it” is a maxim of free speech — and a bold declaration of the exact opposite of your message: if we want a free society, we have a moral duty to aid the freedom of others — not suppress it.
So... people who believe in “free speech” as a moral value will disagree with your first paragraph — and hence, your entire post.
You assume your conclusion, so your argument fails to be persuasive.
“I disagree with what you say, but I’ll fight to the death to defend your right to say it” is a maxim of free speech — and a bold declaration of the exact opposite of your message: if we want a free society, we have a moral duty to aid the freedom of others — not suppress it.
Note how “to defend your right to say it” actually makes sense in its normal context of positive and negative rights. One can in theory fight to defend every person’s right to say what they want to say, because saying something generally does not preclude anyone else from also saying something.
However, these modifications doesn’t work the same way: “to defend your right to be trending on Twitter” or “to defend your right to be on CNN tonight.” These things are still forms of speech, of course, and yet their exercise does in fact preclude others from likewise exercising. It doesn’t make sense do defend every person’s right to be trending on Twitter.
However, these modifications doesn’t work the same way: “to defend your right to be trending on Twitter” or “to defend your right to be on CNN tonight.” These things are still forms of speech, of course, and yet their exercise does in fact preclude others from likewise exercising. It doesn’t make sense do defend every person’s right to be trending on Twitter.
Disclaimer: I don't really use Twitter, so my understanding of its mechanics might be wrong.
Isn't "trending on Twitter" a popularity contest? As in something's "trending" because more people (users, as opposed to Twitter the company or their moderators) have chosen to interact with that tweet instead of some other?
I think that "to defend your right to say it", in this context, does mean "to defend your right to be trending on Twitter". What I understand by that is that anyone has a right to not be artificially prevented from trending, such as hiding the tweet from other users (censorship) or "not counting the votes" correctly which won't have a tweet "trend" even though it's the most retweeted / replied to.
As I've said on another comment on this thread, my tweet is my speech, it's not Twitter's. And if the "trending" is the effect of the users' actions, having a tweet become trending is the collective speech of the users, not twitter's.
It's pretty much the same thing with CNN. Having someone on "cnn tonight" is CNN's speech. They choose to have person A instead of person B.
Twitter removing a tweet or otherwise preventing it from trending is like some external entity – e.g. the cable company – preventing CNN from having person C on the show because they don't agree with person C's speech.
In my opinion, in this scenario, CNN is like the Twitter user, not like Twitter the company. Just because they have some third party on the show doesn't make CNN any less of a publisher of speech. Just as if a Twitter user chooses to quote someone instead of someone else (as opposed to twitting an "original thought" or "own opinion").
Isn't "trending on Twitter" a popularity contest? As in something's "trending" because more people (users, as opposed to Twitter the company or their moderators) have chosen to interact with that tweet instead of some other?
I think that "to defend your right to say it", in this context, does mean "to defend your right to be trending on Twitter". What I understand by that is that anyone has a right to not be artificially prevented from trending, such as hiding the tweet from other users (censorship) or "not counting the votes" correctly which won't have a tweet "trend" even though it's the most retweeted / replied to.
As I've said on another comment on this thread, my tweet is my speech, it's not Twitter's. And if the "trending" is the effect of the users' actions, having a tweet become trending is the collective speech of the users, not twitter's.
It's pretty much the same thing with CNN. Having someone on "cnn tonight" is CNN's speech. They choose to have person A instead of person B.
Twitter removing a tweet or otherwise preventing it from trending is like some external entity – e.g. the cable company – preventing CNN from having person C on the show because they don't agree with person C's speech.
In my opinion, in this scenario, CNN is like the Twitter user, not like Twitter the company. Just because they have some third party on the show doesn't make CNN any less of a publisher of speech. Just as if a Twitter user chooses to quote someone instead of someone else (as opposed to twitting an "original thought" or "own opinion").
I think you’re making a common mistake, which is to assume there’s some “natural” algorithm that determines which tweets trend, and that human intervention is “unnatural” and unfair.
But on the contrary, Twitter’s trending feature (and indeed all distribution on all public social media networks I’m aware of) is active promotion of speech. Humans at Twitter are deciding which tweets trend, regardless of whether they’re doing so manually or using algorithms (which they designed) to automate the process.
Even a very simple change to a very simple ranking algorithm, like changing the relative value of likes/comments/etc. or the time decay of whatever values are being counted, can significantly change which content gets promoted. These are choices that humans make at Twitter.
But on the contrary, Twitter’s trending feature (and indeed all distribution on all public social media networks I’m aware of) is active promotion of speech. Humans at Twitter are deciding which tweets trend, regardless of whether they’re doing so manually or using algorithms (which they designed) to automate the process.
Even a very simple change to a very simple ranking algorithm, like changing the relative value of likes/comments/etc. or the time decay of whatever values are being counted, can significantly change which content gets promoted. These are choices that humans make at Twitter.
> I think you’re making a common mistake, which is to assume there’s some “natural” algorithm that determines which tweets trend, and that human intervention is “unnatural” and unfair.
That's partly true. I think it's "unfair", or rather disingenuous, only when the company claims there's no manual intervention. I wouldn't really have an issue with a company saying "we're looking to promote this or that speech". I think no one really takes issue that Democrat or Republican conventions don't have speakers from the opposing parties. They are clearly labeled "Democrat", so people expect this going in.
I think the crux of the matter is these platforms pretend being an unbiased space for people to communicate, when they clearly aren't. Or rather, they aren't as open anymore. Once people flocked to them, and they became a common place of exchange, the rules drastically changed.
That's partly true. I think it's "unfair", or rather disingenuous, only when the company claims there's no manual intervention. I wouldn't really have an issue with a company saying "we're looking to promote this or that speech". I think no one really takes issue that Democrat or Republican conventions don't have speakers from the opposing parties. They are clearly labeled "Democrat", so people expect this going in.
I think the crux of the matter is these platforms pretend being an unbiased space for people to communicate, when they clearly aren't. Or rather, they aren't as open anymore. Once people flocked to them, and they became a common place of exchange, the rules drastically changed.
Why did the rules change? Twitter, and any other private company, has never been under any legal obligation in it's business to provide a public space and it's not clear how you'd even define them as providing one (seeing as how the servers are in Twitter's datacenters, using Twitter's network, paid for by Twitter's revenue).
Literally everything on Twitter is Twitter's property other then where governed by intellectual property law agreements and even then it's still someone's private property they have a right to control!
A country club being very popular doesn't suddenly make it a public space.
Literally everything on Twitter is Twitter's property other then where governed by intellectual property law agreements and even then it's still someone's private property they have a right to control!
A country club being very popular doesn't suddenly make it a public space.
> Why did the rules change?
I'm not a Twitter user so don't know exactly, but from what I see being discussed, it seems to me that there used to be more tolerance towards certain groups (apparently right wing, but probably others, too). But maybe that's just it, the rules themselves haven't changed, they're just more strictly enforced now (I actually don't know).
I'd say that what they're doing is obviously not illegal, or else we probably wouldn't be having this conversation because it would be much more clear-cut.
However, it's more of a "moral" issue, for lack of a better term. They advertised the platform as a medium for everybody to exchange. Now that a lot of people have gone there because of this advertisement, it has become more or less a public utility.
Now, again, I'm not saying what they're doing is illegal, they are not legally a utility, there are other avenues for people to communicate, etc.
> A country club being very popular doesn't suddenly make it a public space.
While I think you're right in the general case, I can't help but think there's a question of measure involved.
The country club will advertise exclusivity. Even if it's just for pose, and it's actually easy to gain membership, it will actively not pretend it's open to any and everybody. Also, it will require people be somewhat close geographically and will have a fairly limited reach. If the club said "we're open to everybody, we want to encourage public conversation" [0], then I'd consider it the same way I do Twitter.
Contrast this with Twitter, which explicitly advertises its openness.[0] And when you can subscribe to Twitter just by having a random browser and an internet connection, wherever you are in the world, and when pretty much anyone and their grandmother are using it to communicate, and when there's an assumption (be it misguided!) that Twitter is a public space, I think it's at least worth it to consider the question.
The answer may well be a firm "no", but it may also be "woops, this is actually something new, which we hadn't considered in our (quite old) laws. Maybe we should do something about it".
To sum it all up, I think Twitter, FB, etc are all a fairly new kind of "thing". They are private entities in that they are funded, operated, etc by a private company and with that private company's goal in mind. But their operations are clearly designed to attract the most people who then communicate on their platform.
Just as we regulated what can and can't be done by a telephone company or an electrical company (all private entities!) when those came about, I wouldn't be shocked for there to be some kind of specific regulation for those platforms, more than "just don't break any laws". It seems pretty obvious to me that trying to apply pre-existing models to them doesn't work all that well.
---
[0] From about.twitter.com, emphasis mine:
> We serve the * public* conversation. That’s why it matters to us that people have a free and safe space to talk.
> We believe real change starts with conversation. Here, your voice matters. Come as you are and together we’ll do what’s right (not what’s easy) to serve the public conversation.
I'm not a Twitter user so don't know exactly, but from what I see being discussed, it seems to me that there used to be more tolerance towards certain groups (apparently right wing, but probably others, too). But maybe that's just it, the rules themselves haven't changed, they're just more strictly enforced now (I actually don't know).
I'd say that what they're doing is obviously not illegal, or else we probably wouldn't be having this conversation because it would be much more clear-cut.
However, it's more of a "moral" issue, for lack of a better term. They advertised the platform as a medium for everybody to exchange. Now that a lot of people have gone there because of this advertisement, it has become more or less a public utility.
Now, again, I'm not saying what they're doing is illegal, they are not legally a utility, there are other avenues for people to communicate, etc.
> A country club being very popular doesn't suddenly make it a public space.
While I think you're right in the general case, I can't help but think there's a question of measure involved.
The country club will advertise exclusivity. Even if it's just for pose, and it's actually easy to gain membership, it will actively not pretend it's open to any and everybody. Also, it will require people be somewhat close geographically and will have a fairly limited reach. If the club said "we're open to everybody, we want to encourage public conversation" [0], then I'd consider it the same way I do Twitter.
Contrast this with Twitter, which explicitly advertises its openness.[0] And when you can subscribe to Twitter just by having a random browser and an internet connection, wherever you are in the world, and when pretty much anyone and their grandmother are using it to communicate, and when there's an assumption (be it misguided!) that Twitter is a public space, I think it's at least worth it to consider the question.
The answer may well be a firm "no", but it may also be "woops, this is actually something new, which we hadn't considered in our (quite old) laws. Maybe we should do something about it".
To sum it all up, I think Twitter, FB, etc are all a fairly new kind of "thing". They are private entities in that they are funded, operated, etc by a private company and with that private company's goal in mind. But their operations are clearly designed to attract the most people who then communicate on their platform.
Just as we regulated what can and can't be done by a telephone company or an electrical company (all private entities!) when those came about, I wouldn't be shocked for there to be some kind of specific regulation for those platforms, more than "just don't break any laws". It seems pretty obvious to me that trying to apply pre-existing models to them doesn't work all that well.
---
[0] From about.twitter.com, emphasis mine:
> We serve the * public* conversation. That’s why it matters to us that people have a free and safe space to talk.
> We believe real change starts with conversation. Here, your voice matters. Come as you are and together we’ll do what’s right (not what’s easy) to serve the public conversation.
It is extremely odd to find so many on Hacker News arguing for laws to say "that server you own and run in your house that hosts a small web forum...that's a public space now, you'll not be deleting things from it anymore". Because there's no way somehow Twitter is a public space but any random phpBB isn't - they both ask for an email address to sign up and can reject me at that point if they don't like my provider.
There are no laws governing how a corporation defines it's "values" as an entity and it certainly has no need to follow that - freedom of speech is my freedom to lie through my teeth publicly about everything I believe, for example.
So again: Twitter has always been able to talk about how it's for things, but at the end of the day it's Twitter's garden and we all play in it.
There are no laws governing how a corporation defines it's "values" as an entity and it certainly has no need to follow that - freedom of speech is my freedom to lie through my teeth publicly about everything I believe, for example.
So again: Twitter has always been able to talk about how it's for things, but at the end of the day it's Twitter's garden and we all play in it.
> It is extremely odd to find so many on Hacker News arguing for laws to say "that server you own and run in your house that hosts a small web forum...that's a public space now,
I mean if for you the scale simply doesn't come into equation, then yeah, I guess Twitter, serving millions and millions of users and being used for communication by many public figures is exactly the same thing as a random server in someone's basement serving 100 people talking about some niche subject.
Of course there has to be a line drawn to distinguish the two, and I don't know where it should be drawn. I think it's a tough call.
But then, in the case of FB and Twitter, maybe this has "run out of hand"? Maybe those platforms became public forum in spite of the companies' wishes? Let's assume that's the case. Does that mean we shouldn't do anything about it?
> There are no laws governing how a corporation defines it's "values" as an entity and it certainly has no need to follow that - freedom of speech is my freedom to lie through my teeth publicly about everything I believe, for example.
It is, but your doing that exposes you to my freedom of calling you a liar. Hence, the "moral" component I talked about in my previous post.
I think where the government should come in is when you're trying to get everyone inside your private space, to use it as a general communications medium (as opposed to niche, interest-based), and then you cut off those you don't like for whatever reason. Would you be OK with a utility, say the electric company, denying you service because they don't agree with your – non-illegal! – use of their electricity? If not, why's Twitter different?
I mean if for you the scale simply doesn't come into equation, then yeah, I guess Twitter, serving millions and millions of users and being used for communication by many public figures is exactly the same thing as a random server in someone's basement serving 100 people talking about some niche subject.
Of course there has to be a line drawn to distinguish the two, and I don't know where it should be drawn. I think it's a tough call.
But then, in the case of FB and Twitter, maybe this has "run out of hand"? Maybe those platforms became public forum in spite of the companies' wishes? Let's assume that's the case. Does that mean we shouldn't do anything about it?
> There are no laws governing how a corporation defines it's "values" as an entity and it certainly has no need to follow that - freedom of speech is my freedom to lie through my teeth publicly about everything I believe, for example.
It is, but your doing that exposes you to my freedom of calling you a liar. Hence, the "moral" component I talked about in my previous post.
I think where the government should come in is when you're trying to get everyone inside your private space, to use it as a general communications medium (as opposed to niche, interest-based), and then you cut off those you don't like for whatever reason. Would you be OK with a utility, say the electric company, denying you service because they don't agree with your – non-illegal! – use of their electricity? If not, why's Twitter different?
You've avoided answering the question: if Twitter and other private platforms are suddenly "public spaces" due to scale...what does that mean? Practically? These are businesses with costs, expenses, legal liabilities (i.e. copyright and defamation law), advertisers to keep happy for revenue.
You're demanding the government step in and nationalize a business which in no way has a monopoly on a concept which has never been protected - the right to a broadcast platform.
You're demanding the government step in and nationalize a business which in no way has a monopoly on a concept which has never been protected - the right to a broadcast platform.
It probably means changing laws to allow users to hold internet platforms liable for harms caused. All parties can then have their day(s) in court. That seems fair to me.
I'm not talking about nationalizing anything, just defining what they are. In the particular case of Twitter and FB, I'd be on the side of declaring them utilities. They wouldn't be liable for what people say there as long as it's otherwise legal. In return, they wouldn't be allowed to cut people off without due process (in an actual court, not by some contractor following an order because the CEO doesn't like someone).
>Isn't "trending on Twitter" a popularity contest?
Right up until it runs into their 'trending blacklist'. An admin tool that the existence of was leaked a while back.
Right up until it runs into their 'trending blacklist'. An admin tool that the existence of was leaked a while back.
The response is that Twitter is more like a neighborhood bar than CNN — and yeah, it would be pretty weird to exclude people from the bar’s karaoke or comedy night based on their political beliefs. Being able to speak your mind at the bar (or other neighborhood center) is exactly what free speech is about.
Actually, it would be illegal to ban people based on politics (as Twitter does) where I live (Seattle), as doing so violates rules for public accommodations which require the owner (a private company) not to discriminate based on political ideology. Rules for private establishments to enforce public access and equality are normal.
Whether or not you think it makes sense to defend the right to be trending on Twitter depends on whether you view it like the bar (mic night open to all) or like CNN (editorial control).
Of course, if Twitter is like CNN and not the bar, they should lose copyright protections — those aren’t meant for edited anthologies (like CNN).
Actually, it would be illegal to ban people based on politics (as Twitter does) where I live (Seattle), as doing so violates rules for public accommodations which require the owner (a private company) not to discriminate based on political ideology. Rules for private establishments to enforce public access and equality are normal.
Whether or not you think it makes sense to defend the right to be trending on Twitter depends on whether you view it like the bar (mic night open to all) or like CNN (editorial control).
Of course, if Twitter is like CNN and not the bar, they should lose copyright protections — those aren’t meant for edited anthologies (like CNN).
I guess you have a problem with news editorial decisions then? For example, Fox News have a strong bias running through their programming. Isn't that a kind of implicit censorship of ideas?
Opinions are biased and specific people and programs are biased on Fox News and many other channels, but to be a journalist you literally have to correct false statements you make. This makes Fox News as reliable as all other stations. People often post memes about Fox News or CNN saying something wildly stupid but don’t realize they are posting a literal opinion from an opinion show not news from a news show.
> but to be a journalist you literally have to correct false statements you make
What? No, you absolutely do not have to correct false statements you make to be a journalist. Reputable publications post retractions and clarifications because that is how they maintain their reputation, but it is in no way a requirement.
What? No, you absolutely do not have to correct false statements you make to be a journalist. Reputable publications post retractions and clarifications because that is how they maintain their reputation, but it is in no way a requirement.
You actually do or you can lose your license to broadcast.
The FCC is prohibited by law from engaging in censorship or infringing on First Amendment rights of the press. It is, however, illegal for broadcasters to intentionally distort the news, and the FCC may act on complaints if there is documented evidence of such behavior from persons with direct personal knowledge.
This is also besides slander and libel, lying about an individual or organization.
The FCC is prohibited by law from engaging in censorship or infringing on First Amendment rights of the press. It is, however, illegal for broadcasters to intentionally distort the news, and the FCC may act on complaints if there is documented evidence of such behavior from persons with direct personal knowledge.
This is also besides slander and libel, lying about an individual or organization.
> It is, however, illegal for broadcasters to intentionally distort the news, and the FCC may act on complaints if there is documented evidence of such behavior from persons with direct personal knowledge.
What particular laws are you referring to?
> This is also besides slander and libel, lying about an individual or organization.
Sure, you can get sued for that. But getting sued for libel or defamation doesn't mean you can't be a journalist anymore. A journalist who loses a libel lawsuit can keep writing even if they've been sued into oblivion.
What particular laws are you referring to?
> This is also besides slander and libel, lying about an individual or organization.
Sure, you can get sued for that. But getting sued for libel or defamation doesn't mean you can't be a journalist anymore. A journalist who loses a libel lawsuit can keep writing even if they've been sued into oblivion.
We don't have a "moral duty" to force corporations to allow Nazis on their platform, though.
The Nazis are perfectly capable of building their own platform.
The Nazis are perfectly capable of building their own platform.
What percentage of the people being kicked off these platforms are actually Nazis? It seems very close to zero.
> Like most of these rants against "censorship" they skip over people's rights to restrict speech as a form of speech itself: there is no moral (or legal) right to give people you disagree with a forum or audience to express their view.
Free expression is a moral right.
And what is a platform anyway? A wordpress site? A twitter account? An IP address? A bank account? A megaphone? A street corner? A sign? How far are you willing to go to shut other people up because you disagree with them?
> Calling to silence others (that is, encouraging them to take your view of not giving them an audience) is fine as long as people have a choice on how to respond.
How did we turn so quickly to this view? When I was growing up, everyone would have blanched at the suggestion that attempting to "silence others" is a-okay. It wasn't that it was illegal. It was that it was a strategy that would only occur to weak, ineffectual people who were afraid to argue on the merits.
> Is the government or some other absolute authority censoring wrong? Yes. Are powerful monopolies (or near monopolies) wrong to censor? No, because they have the same speech rights as others, the problem there lies in the market power of the monopolies, not their speech.
By what principle is it wrong for the government to censor? Once you've answered that, please explain how that principle magically stops at the government.
Free expression is a moral right.
And what is a platform anyway? A wordpress site? A twitter account? An IP address? A bank account? A megaphone? A street corner? A sign? How far are you willing to go to shut other people up because you disagree with them?
> Calling to silence others (that is, encouraging them to take your view of not giving them an audience) is fine as long as people have a choice on how to respond.
How did we turn so quickly to this view? When I was growing up, everyone would have blanched at the suggestion that attempting to "silence others" is a-okay. It wasn't that it was illegal. It was that it was a strategy that would only occur to weak, ineffectual people who were afraid to argue on the merits.
> Is the government or some other absolute authority censoring wrong? Yes. Are powerful monopolies (or near monopolies) wrong to censor? No, because they have the same speech rights as others, the problem there lies in the market power of the monopolies, not their speech.
By what principle is it wrong for the government to censor? Once you've answered that, please explain how that principle magically stops at the government.
> And what is a platform anyway? A wordpress site? A twitter account? An IP address? A bank account? A megaphone? A street corner? A sign? How far are you willing to go to shut other people up because you disagree with them?
Well, I'm curious, what do you think it is?
If I run a forum or a blog, should I have to allow any comment, to be morally in the right? Let's say I run a forum dedicated to discussing Christianity, and some person keeps posting arguments that God isn't real, or posts pictures of aborted fetuses, in every thread on my forum. If free expression is a moral right, is it immoral for me to remove such content from any thread? Even threads about daily worship or about lost loved ones?
Well, I'm curious, what do you think it is?
If I run a forum or a blog, should I have to allow any comment, to be morally in the right? Let's say I run a forum dedicated to discussing Christianity, and some person keeps posting arguments that God isn't real, or posts pictures of aborted fetuses, in every thread on my forum. If free expression is a moral right, is it immoral for me to remove such content from any thread? Even threads about daily worship or about lost loved ones?
>> Like most of these rants against "censorship" they skip over people's rights to restrict speech as a form of speech itself: there is no moral (or legal) right to give people you disagree with a forum or audience to express their view.
> Free expression is a moral right.
> And what is a platform anyway? A wordpress site? A twitter account? An IP address? A bank account? A megaphone? A street corner? A sign? How far are you willing to go to shut other people up because you disagree with them? ...
> By what principle is it wrong for the government to censor? Once you've answered that, please explain how that principle magically stops at the government.
Yeah, it's a moral right, but its implementation is more complicated than a lot of people want to acknowledge.
Is it censorship for you to refuse to wear a shirt that I give you with some slogan I agree with? No. Is it censorship for you to take down a yard sign with that slogan that I placed in your front yard? No. What if you allowed someone else to put up a yard sign that you agree with? Still no.
If literally one guy owns all the land in the world, is it censorship for him to control what signs get put up? Almost certainly.
No one's going to be able to give you a pithy principle that fits in an internet comment that tells you where the censorship/not censorship line is, given the huge grey areas between those extremes. This is an area where lots of interests need to be balanced, and where reasonable people can disagree.
> Free expression is a moral right.
> And what is a platform anyway? A wordpress site? A twitter account? An IP address? A bank account? A megaphone? A street corner? A sign? How far are you willing to go to shut other people up because you disagree with them? ...
> By what principle is it wrong for the government to censor? Once you've answered that, please explain how that principle magically stops at the government.
Yeah, it's a moral right, but its implementation is more complicated than a lot of people want to acknowledge.
Is it censorship for you to refuse to wear a shirt that I give you with some slogan I agree with? No. Is it censorship for you to take down a yard sign with that slogan that I placed in your front yard? No. What if you allowed someone else to put up a yard sign that you agree with? Still no.
If literally one guy owns all the land in the world, is it censorship for him to control what signs get put up? Almost certainly.
No one's going to be able to give you a pithy principle that fits in an internet comment that tells you where the censorship/not censorship line is, given the huge grey areas between those extremes. This is an area where lots of interests need to be balanced, and where reasonable people can disagree.
There's no legal right, unless you are a government employee (who btw routinely censor anyway, e.g. any state university with a content-based speech policy is violating the law). But there's very much a moral right and moral obligation - if you are in a position of power, as people leading the high-tech industry and prominent politicians are, you are responsible for maintaining the society that promoted you to that power in good health.
And good health of the society requires free exchange of ideas and freedom to debate this ideas without fear of being persecuted and punished. Yes, even if you're end up being wrong - in fact, freedom to be wrong (excluding, of course, recognition that you're wrong) is vital to any proper debate, since if being wrong implies one's destruction and punishment, no serious and honest debate is possible, and no serious and honest truth-seeking through free exchange of ideas is possible either. You'd either fear to express your ideas, if you're powerless, or use your power to suppress other's ideas and punish them, if you're powerful - and that would have no relation with whose ideas are better.
Only when the exchange of ideas are free, and only when ideas can participate in this competition without prior approval by powerful incumbents, any healthy democratic society is possible.
And yes, whoever in power in such society, which now includes the big tech leadership, have moral if not legal responsibility for it - a responsibility that they are not only neglecting but blatantly violating right now. Censorship by powerful monopolies is as wrong as censorship by the government, and we need to stop hiding behind this stupid idea "but it's not government, so we can ignore it".
And good health of the society requires free exchange of ideas and freedom to debate this ideas without fear of being persecuted and punished. Yes, even if you're end up being wrong - in fact, freedom to be wrong (excluding, of course, recognition that you're wrong) is vital to any proper debate, since if being wrong implies one's destruction and punishment, no serious and honest debate is possible, and no serious and honest truth-seeking through free exchange of ideas is possible either. You'd either fear to express your ideas, if you're powerless, or use your power to suppress other's ideas and punish them, if you're powerful - and that would have no relation with whose ideas are better.
Only when the exchange of ideas are free, and only when ideas can participate in this competition without prior approval by powerful incumbents, any healthy democratic society is possible.
And yes, whoever in power in such society, which now includes the big tech leadership, have moral if not legal responsibility for it - a responsibility that they are not only neglecting but blatantly violating right now. Censorship by powerful monopolies is as wrong as censorship by the government, and we need to stop hiding behind this stupid idea "but it's not government, so we can ignore it".
So in the case that participants on a social platform engage in trolling, harassment, and abuse (sometimes with bots), that company should not do anything? If some people who are attempting to exchange ideas and debate in good faith, are shouted down by people hurling epithets and death threats, the platform owners should shrug their shoulders?
When people openly promote and even plan violent attacks against others big tech should just leave things be?
When people openly promote and even plan violent attacks against others big tech should just leave things be?
I think we have more than ample proof of Big Tech companies blocking people not for abuse/bots but for expressing viewpoints that the platform management deems politically unacceptable. So let's not pretend that fighting bot abuse, spam, violent threats, etc. is the same as political censorship - the platforms can do one without the other, and actually have been doing it successfully up to about 2019, when they started increasingly censor by political views. And now political bans are pretty much commonplace. Once can pretend that it's all "fighting disinformation" and "preventing violence" but nobody is buying it anymore. It's political censorship, sometimes openly partisan censorship, and nothing more.
I think you have a point in that no one has a right to force me to listen to their speech.
However, I think that in the case of the monopolies being discussed here, it's different. The issue is that they "enable" speech in a generic way. They don't enable this or that speech in particular. They also don't force A to listen to B's speech. If anything, they do the complete opposite, what with the whole "echo chamber" situation. I think this is the whole meat of the "platform vs publisher" debate.
A newspaper or other media have to actively "enable" something. When they publish speech A, they choose to not publish speech B. It's often an "either / or", at least for questions of space. They produce whatever speech they print / show. It's theirs, it's their point of view.
However, Facebook, Twitter and other similar companies only put out a tool. This tool is then used by this or that person to speak this or that argument. FB doesn't actively and directly help speaker A anymore that they help speaker B. Also, as an FB user, no one forces you to listen to B's speech if you don't care for it. Your right not to listen to speech you disagree with is not infringed. If I publish a story on FB, it's my story, my speech, not Facebook's. Just as if I shout in the town square it's my speech that I shout. It doesn't become the mayor's speech because it's in his town or the square's architect because he built it in such a way that my voice can physically be heard.
If you consider that FB has some right to prevent people from speaking "wrong" views, then why stop at FB? We should come up with ways to help other companies to prevent their product from being used for speech and other actions they don't agree with. Like the power company. Maybe they don't like their electricity being used to spread some "wrong" ideas. I'm pretty sure the local bakery isn't all that happy either to support some X-ist fanatic.
Where do we draw the line?
However, I think that in the case of the monopolies being discussed here, it's different. The issue is that they "enable" speech in a generic way. They don't enable this or that speech in particular. They also don't force A to listen to B's speech. If anything, they do the complete opposite, what with the whole "echo chamber" situation. I think this is the whole meat of the "platform vs publisher" debate.
A newspaper or other media have to actively "enable" something. When they publish speech A, they choose to not publish speech B. It's often an "either / or", at least for questions of space. They produce whatever speech they print / show. It's theirs, it's their point of view.
However, Facebook, Twitter and other similar companies only put out a tool. This tool is then used by this or that person to speak this or that argument. FB doesn't actively and directly help speaker A anymore that they help speaker B. Also, as an FB user, no one forces you to listen to B's speech if you don't care for it. Your right not to listen to speech you disagree with is not infringed. If I publish a story on FB, it's my story, my speech, not Facebook's. Just as if I shout in the town square it's my speech that I shout. It doesn't become the mayor's speech because it's in his town or the square's architect because he built it in such a way that my voice can physically be heard.
If you consider that FB has some right to prevent people from speaking "wrong" views, then why stop at FB? We should come up with ways to help other companies to prevent their product from being used for speech and other actions they don't agree with. Like the power company. Maybe they don't like their electricity being used to spread some "wrong" ideas. I'm pretty sure the local bakery isn't all that happy either to support some X-ist fanatic.
Where do we draw the line?
> However, Facebook, Twitter and other similar companies only put out a tool. This tool is then used by this or that person to speak this or that argument. FB doesn't actively and directly help speaker A anymore that they help speaker B.
Facebook actually deliberately manipulates people's feeds in order to promote content that will increase engagement. Twitter does the same by default.
> Just as if I shout in the town square it's my speech that I shout. It doesn't become the mayor's speech because it's in his town or the square's architect because he built it in such a way that my voice can physically be heard.
The town square is public property. If you instead decide to step inside a private business and shout they can have you removed from the premises.
> Like the power company. Maybe they don't like their electricity being used to spread some "wrong" ideas.
Electricity is regulated as a utility and as such wouldn't be allowed to cut service for that reason. A bakery could refuse to bake cakes with swatiskas on them if they so chose for example. Where the private business's choices on refusing service runs into trouble is when they refuse service based on a customer's race/ethnicity, religion, or sexual orientation.
Facebook actually deliberately manipulates people's feeds in order to promote content that will increase engagement. Twitter does the same by default.
> Just as if I shout in the town square it's my speech that I shout. It doesn't become the mayor's speech because it's in his town or the square's architect because he built it in such a way that my voice can physically be heard.
The town square is public property. If you instead decide to step inside a private business and shout they can have you removed from the premises.
> Like the power company. Maybe they don't like their electricity being used to spread some "wrong" ideas.
Electricity is regulated as a utility and as such wouldn't be allowed to cut service for that reason. A bakery could refuse to bake cakes with swatiskas on them if they so chose for example. Where the private business's choices on refusing service runs into trouble is when they refuse service based on a customer's race/ethnicity, religion, or sexual orientation.
The argument is we draw the line at public versus private. Elected governments are not allowed to restrict speech, but private companies are. I don’t subscribe to this view, but it’s what the libertarian paternalists think.
By that argument, the US "monopoly or near monopoly" phone company AT&T during the Vietnam War could have decided that anyone who spoke on the phone about their opposition to the Vietnam War was unpatriotic and canceled their telephone service, and leftists who so often now make the argument you're making would have supported their right to do so. "The private phone companies should be allowed to enforce their terms of service prohibiting anything they consider 'hate speech' against America," explains Noam Chomsky, adding that "I don't share their opinions about the war, but it's not as if the govt-run postal service is doing it, so I don't see the problem."
The two major credit card companies that dominated could have canceled anti-war "haters'" credit cards in the name of patriotic support of the just cause, banks closed their checking accounts, the major airlines refused to fly them, and so on, and those on the left with your principled commitment to the right of "monopolies and near monopolies" to enforce their political preferences would have had no major objections--as long as it really is a general principle and not just a pretense.
Is the government or some other absolute authority censoring wrong? Yes. Are powerful monopolies (or near monopolies) wrong to censor? No, because they have the same speech rights as others
And yet I suspect that this support for the "freedom" of the most powerful to silence, control, and enforce their will is not really the general, politically neutral commitment to everyone's freedom of choice that it pretends to be.
The two major credit card companies that dominated could have canceled anti-war "haters'" credit cards in the name of patriotic support of the just cause, banks closed their checking accounts, the major airlines refused to fly them, and so on, and those on the left with your principled commitment to the right of "monopolies and near monopolies" to enforce their political preferences would have had no major objections--as long as it really is a general principle and not just a pretense.
Is the government or some other absolute authority censoring wrong? Yes. Are powerful monopolies (or near monopolies) wrong to censor? No, because they have the same speech rights as others
And yet I suspect that this support for the "freedom" of the most powerful to silence, control, and enforce their will is not really the general, politically neutral commitment to everyone's freedom of choice that it pretends to be.
They literally could have if the technology and motivation was there, that's why they were considered a monopoly and broken up by act of the state: because the lack of a viable competitor service means that sort of consumer hostile action was possible.
Of course, in reality phone company's exchange the right to monitor what you say for common carrier status which makes them legally immune to the fact you are saying it, and credit card companies do in fact ditch whoever they want because they have no such burden.
The solution in one case is obvious (protect net neutrality) and the solution in the other case would line up with the calls for US Post to be extended to offering basic banking services to ensure an appropriate floor on the transaction market, and as a government entity would have to allow everyone to transact.
It's not clear to me what you seem to think Google, Twitter or Facebook should get in response for becoming a "public plaza" style arrangement which would be detrimental to their business model and wouldn't destroy the rest of the internet in the process? After all is a DDOS attack also free speech? A botnet? What are we going to obligate them to carry and on what basis?
Of course, in reality phone company's exchange the right to monitor what you say for common carrier status which makes them legally immune to the fact you are saying it, and credit card companies do in fact ditch whoever they want because they have no such burden.
The solution in one case is obvious (protect net neutrality) and the solution in the other case would line up with the calls for US Post to be extended to offering basic banking services to ensure an appropriate floor on the transaction market, and as a government entity would have to allow everyone to transact.
It's not clear to me what you seem to think Google, Twitter or Facebook should get in response for becoming a "public plaza" style arrangement which would be detrimental to their business model and wouldn't destroy the rest of the internet in the process? After all is a DDOS attack also free speech? A botnet? What are we going to obligate them to carry and on what basis?
So, if AT&T cut out phone service from union sympathizers, that would be OK, because they are just expressing their right to free speech?
I think there is such a thing as critical communication infrastructure, and even if it run by private companies, it should be protected from censorship. Whether all of FB or just private messaging fall under this is more debatable, but there have to be clear limits on what a company that facilitates communication between 1 billion people can do.
I think there is such a thing as critical communication infrastructure, and even if it run by private companies, it should be protected from censorship. Whether all of FB or just private messaging fall under this is more debatable, but there have to be clear limits on what a company that facilitates communication between 1 billion people can do.
> the problem there lies in the market power of the monopolies, not their speech.
So if there were 50 companies, and all of them censored you for saying something really unpopular, would things be any better?
Critical infrastructure must be legally protected from censorship and (private, mandate-less) eavesdropping. Whether it is run by a monopoly or many small companies is immaterial.
Critical infrastructure must be legally protected from censorship and (private, mandate-less) eavesdropping. Whether it is run by a monopoly or many small companies is immaterial.
Critical infrastructure has never been regarded as a public platform.
No one has been prevented from buying their own internet connection or DNS names and running their own site over the "common carrier" status internet backbone infrastructure.
It's just a lot less useful when your goal is radicalization and you need to hit the widest possible audience to get conversions.
No one has been prevented from buying their own internet connection or DNS names and running their own site over the "common carrier" status internet backbone infrastructure.
It's just a lot less useful when your goal is radicalization and you need to hit the widest possible audience to get conversions.
Is that guaranteed? Parler has found that the machines their code ran on could be taken away for having bad opinions. I'm not a defender of fascists, if anything I lean towards being happy when their megaphone is taken away, even when they receive the occasional punch, but the precedent this has set with the power of these companies is frightening for anyone.
What if Amazon will refuse to do with business with people who support unions next? It no longer seems impossible to ke.
What if Amazon will refuse to do with business with people who support unions next? It no longer seems impossible to ke.
Amazon contracts haven't changed, they always have had the right to drop you for any reason.
Amazon is not a common carrier: the cloud, other people's data centers, have no legal requirement to be neutral about what runs on them (and it's not even clear how this would work given the difference between compute and communications).
Amazon is not a common carrier: the cloud, other people's data centers, have no legal requirement to be neutral about what runs on them (and it's not even clear how this would work given the difference between compute and communications).
First of all, there is a difference between current law (which means that what AWS did with Parler is indeed perfectly legal) and a theoretical "perfectly fair" law, which is essentially what people mean when they say such and such should/should not be legal.
Secondly, there are limits even in current law on what grounds a business can refuse to do business. For example, Amazon could not refuse to do business with someone because of their skin color, or because of their religion. Extending this in more of a free speech direction (where companies could be prevented from refusing to do business with organizations whose message they do not condone) is not unthinkable (though there are pros and cons).
Secondly, there are limits even in current law on what grounds a business can refuse to do business. For example, Amazon could not refuse to do business with someone because of their skin color, or because of their religion. Extending this in more of a free speech direction (where companies could be prevented from refusing to do business with organizations whose message they do not condone) is not unthinkable (though there are pros and cons).
>Critical infrastructure must be legally protected from censorship and (private, mandate-less) eavesdropping. Whether it is run by a monopoly or many small companies is immaterial.
Well said.
What we have today is an oligopoly on speech by a small handful of ideologically identical technotyrants who have managed to circumvent the first amendment without ever having had to so much as introduce a bill to Congress.
If this keeps going it isn't going to end well.
Well said.
What we have today is an oligopoly on speech by a small handful of ideologically identical technotyrants who have managed to circumvent the first amendment without ever having had to so much as introduce a bill to Congress.
If this keeps going it isn't going to end well.
I agree but this is mostly a different problem: our definition of "critical infrastructure" is outdated, especially in law.
AT&T is regulated as a common carrier and there are federal laws that prevent them from discriminating against their customers. I don't think classifying Twitter and Facebook as common carriers would work out very well for those companies, and I'd imagine they don't want that either.
Maybe there is a different set of regulations that could be applied to those platforms beyond something like Section 230. But the side effects of that could cause serious damage to those companies, depending on how the regulation was crafted.
Maybe there is a different set of regulations that could be applied to those platforms beyond something like Section 230. But the side effects of that could cause serious damage to those companies, depending on how the regulation was crafted.
> Are powerful monopolies (or near monopolies) wrong to censor? No, because they have the same speech rights as others, the problem there lies in the market power of the monopolies, not their speech.
This doesn't work if every platform - whether they have market power or not - are compelled to censor by mobs. Most recently, Glenn Greenwald wrote about journalists trying to get Substack to censor its authors [1]. Well before, Signal employees tried to make their company have an anti-extremism policy [2].
The fact of the matter is, most people don't know enough about censorship to fight against it, and so small groups of dedicated people can create enough of an uproar in their circles about something to make it untenable for any major platform to speak about it, simply because those platforms now have to contend with a vocal minority pushing a narrative. This has been a very common tactic in India, where I'm from: interest groups will object to a movie or a book loudly enough to de-facto, and even sometimes, de-jure censor it. Most recently, a Netflix series lead to a controversy as it dared to show teenagers doing drugs. This lead to Netflix being notified buy the Indian equivalent of the CPS, and was directly caused by people complaining about the show on Twitter. [3]
There is a pardadox of tolerance with respect to free speech. We cannot expect to maintain freedom of expression if we treat everyone who actually expresses themselves as a sinner.
1: https://greenwald.substack.com/p/journalists-start-demanding...
2: https://www.theverge.com/22249391/signal-app-abuse-messaging...
3: https://www.newindianexpress.com/nation/2021/mar/11/netflix-...
This doesn't work if every platform - whether they have market power or not - are compelled to censor by mobs. Most recently, Glenn Greenwald wrote about journalists trying to get Substack to censor its authors [1]. Well before, Signal employees tried to make their company have an anti-extremism policy [2].
The fact of the matter is, most people don't know enough about censorship to fight against it, and so small groups of dedicated people can create enough of an uproar in their circles about something to make it untenable for any major platform to speak about it, simply because those platforms now have to contend with a vocal minority pushing a narrative. This has been a very common tactic in India, where I'm from: interest groups will object to a movie or a book loudly enough to de-facto, and even sometimes, de-jure censor it. Most recently, a Netflix series lead to a controversy as it dared to show teenagers doing drugs. This lead to Netflix being notified buy the Indian equivalent of the CPS, and was directly caused by people complaining about the show on Twitter. [3]
There is a pardadox of tolerance with respect to free speech. We cannot expect to maintain freedom of expression if we treat everyone who actually expresses themselves as a sinner.
1: https://greenwald.substack.com/p/journalists-start-demanding...
2: https://www.theverge.com/22249391/signal-app-abuse-messaging...
3: https://www.newindianexpress.com/nation/2021/mar/11/netflix-...
>There is a pardadox of tolerance with respect to free speech. We cannot expect to maintain freedom of expression if we treat everyone who actually expresses themselves as a sinner.
In every thread about free speech, the people against it cite the 'paradox of tolerance'. Or half of it anyway. They invariably leave off the back half, which is pointedly anti-censorship:
>Unlimited tolerance must lead to the disappearance of tolerance. If we extend unlimited tolerance even to those who are intolerant, if we are not prepared to defend a tolerant society against the onslaught of the intolerant, then the tolerant will be destroyed, and tolerance with them. — *In this formulation, I do not imply, for instance, that we should always suppress the utterance of intolerant philosophies; as long as we can counter them by rational argument and keep them in check by public opinion, suppression would certainly be unwise.* But we should claim the right to suppress them if necessary even by force; for it may easily turn out that they are not prepared to meet us on the level of rational argument, but begin by denouncing all argument; they may forbid their followers to listen to rational argument, because it is deceptive, and teach them to answer arguments by the use of their fists or pistols. We should therefore claim, in the name of tolerance, the right not to tolerate the intolerant.
-Karl Popper
In every thread about free speech, the people against it cite the 'paradox of tolerance'. Or half of it anyway. They invariably leave off the back half, which is pointedly anti-censorship:
>Unlimited tolerance must lead to the disappearance of tolerance. If we extend unlimited tolerance even to those who are intolerant, if we are not prepared to defend a tolerant society against the onslaught of the intolerant, then the tolerant will be destroyed, and tolerance with them. — *In this formulation, I do not imply, for instance, that we should always suppress the utterance of intolerant philosophies; as long as we can counter them by rational argument and keep them in check by public opinion, suppression would certainly be unwise.* But we should claim the right to suppress them if necessary even by force; for it may easily turn out that they are not prepared to meet us on the level of rational argument, but begin by denouncing all argument; they may forbid their followers to listen to rational argument, because it is deceptive, and teach them to answer arguments by the use of their fists or pistols. We should therefore claim, in the name of tolerance, the right not to tolerate the intolerant.
-Karl Popper
Saying censorship is unwise as long as an idea remains sufficiently unpopular isn't anti censorship.
>Like most of these rants against "censorship" they skip over people's rights to restrict speech as a form of speech itself: there is no moral (or legal) right to give people you disagree with a forum or audience to express their view.
I don't disagree with this as stated. But the reality is different. When the tech-oligopoly has a mono-ideology and they all censor the same people, and then pull the rug (hosting) out from under competing platforms, and then rip up the signs (dns) pointing to alternatives, and then siege the opposing cities (payment processors ban them) it becomes a much worse problem. That moves from the theoretical to the practical.
> Are powerful monopolies (or near monopolies) wrong to censor? No, because they have the same speech rights as others, the problem there lies in the market power of the monopolies, not their speech.
Yes, because it's not just websites. It's infrastructure and finance colluding with the presentation layer. At what point do we all agree that it's a problem, and admit that the powerful aren't always right?
I don't disagree with this as stated. But the reality is different. When the tech-oligopoly has a mono-ideology and they all censor the same people, and then pull the rug (hosting) out from under competing platforms, and then rip up the signs (dns) pointing to alternatives, and then siege the opposing cities (payment processors ban them) it becomes a much worse problem. That moves from the theoretical to the practical.
> Are powerful monopolies (or near monopolies) wrong to censor? No, because they have the same speech rights as others, the problem there lies in the market power of the monopolies, not their speech.
Yes, because it's not just websites. It's infrastructure and finance colluding with the presentation layer. At what point do we all agree that it's a problem, and admit that the powerful aren't always right?
> Calling to silence others (that is, encouraging them to take your view of not giving them an audience) is fine as long as people have a choice on how to respond.
This succinctly expresses a feeling of mine I hadn't been able to put into words so beautifully. Thank you!
This succinctly expresses a feeling of mine I hadn't been able to put into words so beautifully. Thank you!
There are multiple issues with free speech no matter what, and some of them are the result of closed platforms that have too much power over communication channels, but ultimately need to moderate to avoid turning their platform into 8chan. I agree with you that many complaints about free speech on the internet have weird caveats like... You should have the right to say whatever you want without criticism or you should have the right to engage in rational debate or play devil's advocate on any topic even if another party doesn't want to. Like you said this might make the free speech proponent happier, but ends up limiting the speech of the person that doesn't want to engage in that way.
The article made the distinction between empirical "can" you censor and normative "should". His point is that censorship or cancelling isn't effective.
This article has nothing to do with whether or not platforms ought to be able to perform content moderation.
The point you are making is just not relevant. Not even tenuously.
The point you are making is just not relevant. Not even tenuously.
Choosing not to be part of an audience (and encouraging others not to be) is not the same as denying others from being part of one they wish to be part of.
> Calling to silence others (that is, encouraging them to take your view of not giving them an audience) is fine as long as people have a choice on how to respond.
The urge to preempt what an audience hears is suspect.
The urge to preempt what an audience hears is suspect.
And you don't have the freedom to measure the presumed audience reach of someone's speech.
Furthermore, your calculation of someone's reach isn't entitled to be the standard of how reduction of reach is to be applied.
In fact, you don't even own the audience or the platform that you claim you have the right to deny others from using.
You have absolutely no say, sway, or stake in anything you are discussing. You're just hiding behind a Google lobbyist's buzzphrase and pretending you are targeting people you don't like.
Furthermore, your calculation of someone's reach isn't entitled to be the standard of how reduction of reach is to be applied.
In fact, you don't even own the audience or the platform that you claim you have the right to deny others from using.
You have absolutely no say, sway, or stake in anything you are discussing. You're just hiding behind a Google lobbyist's buzzphrase and pretending you are targeting people you don't like.
> there is no moral (or legal) right to give people you disagree with a forum or audience to express their view.
I think there actually is such a moral obligation.
I think there actually is such a moral obligation.
Watching the score on this post go up and down so much is fascinating.
But a warning to those who downvote: It's a trap! By doing so you're agreeing with me.
But a warning to those who downvote: It's a trap! By doing so you're agreeing with me.
Hahaha!
I feel like the choice on how to respond is less than it ever was, at least for myself.
It is 100% infeasible for me to contract any of the canon taught in my office: diversity is a top priority, women are oppressed, etc. I don’t even disagree with all of it, but I do know that I don’t have the option of doing anything but earnestly nodding my head at the diversity events.
It is 100% infeasible for me to contract any of the canon taught in my office: diversity is a top priority, women are oppressed, etc. I don’t even disagree with all of it, but I do know that I don’t have the option of doing anything but earnestly nodding my head at the diversity events.
According to the authors logic, we should stop censoring child grooming, fraud, false advertisement, defamation, doxxing, false testimony, etc. because "it doesn't work" and "erodes free speech". This is clearly nonsense. It works, and it should be done, the only question as with all laws is were the line should be.
We restrict freedom in general when it hurts other people (slavery, rape, killing, trespassing,etc) and we don't go around crying about slippery slopes and lack of freedom for it.
Clear examples of good censoring of free speech are the courts decision in the Alex Jones - Sandy Hook case and the Washington Post paying reparations to Nathan Phillips (the child mocking the native American). In both cases their "free speech" caused damage to people and the court decided that they weren't protect under the free speech laws.
We restrict freedom in general when it hurts other people (slavery, rape, killing, trespassing,etc) and we don't go around crying about slippery slopes and lack of freedom for it.
Clear examples of good censoring of free speech are the courts decision in the Alex Jones - Sandy Hook case and the Washington Post paying reparations to Nathan Phillips (the child mocking the native American). In both cases their "free speech" caused damage to people and the court decided that they weren't protect under the free speech laws.
But Alex Jones - Sandy Hook case wasn't censorship (he was free to say what he said), he was sued for defamation. We already have laws on that and all the other stuff you mention child grooming, fraud, false advertisement, doxxing, false testimony, etc.
The point is - we have laws for speech that enters the criminal realm.
The point is - we have laws for speech that enters the criminal realm.
So how is Volksverhetzung, which is defined by law, any different?
That’s a speech law, thus it would be a circular argument (I.e. your speech violated a speech law).
You are completely missing the point. Because those laws exist, the argument for "free speech" and against censorship is ignorant. We don't have free speech and never had and never will, no country on earth has, because it's ridiculous to the point of been childish. Speech is not free, it has limits, like everything else.
And about Alex Jones, the case proves beyond reasonable doubt that he should had been censored to prevent the damage and that is my point. His speech has real life serious consequences that hurt people even if he didn't do it personally and he didn't intended to happen.
And about Alex Jones, the case proves beyond reasonable doubt that he should had been censored to prevent the damage and that is my point. His speech has real life serious consequences that hurt people even if he didn't do it personally and he didn't intended to happen.
No, you're looking at it in too black and white a way. It's not a decision between "no limits to speech at all" and "any limit is fine because free speech doesn't exist".
The line, at least in the US, is that all speech is free unless it "incites imminent criminal behavior". And no, the criminal behavior doesn't include criminal speech (that's just circular logic).
Yes, the line the US draws favors free speech far more than almost any other country. And that's a part of the ethos of our country. Other countries are free to do whatever they want.
And no, Alex Jones shouldn't have been censored (by the government). We don't allow the government to arbitrarily deny citizens rights unless they have been given a fair trial. In his case, a judge decided his speech fell into the realm of defamation and thus his victim was due restitution.
And that's how it should work. We don't need "speech police" and we don't need to create new laws to further remove people's rights. If someone oversteps the bounds of free speech then a judge can decide what to do, not Facebook.
The line, at least in the US, is that all speech is free unless it "incites imminent criminal behavior". And no, the criminal behavior doesn't include criminal speech (that's just circular logic).
Yes, the line the US draws favors free speech far more than almost any other country. And that's a part of the ethos of our country. Other countries are free to do whatever they want.
And no, Alex Jones shouldn't have been censored (by the government). We don't allow the government to arbitrarily deny citizens rights unless they have been given a fair trial. In his case, a judge decided his speech fell into the realm of defamation and thus his victim was due restitution.
And that's how it should work. We don't need "speech police" and we don't need to create new laws to further remove people's rights. If someone oversteps the bounds of free speech then a judge can decide what to do, not Facebook.
The line in the US is that you are free from retaliation by the government.
Private business and private individuals are free to set whatever rules they like about your behavior in their establishments.
They're also allowed to just not listen or want to repeat it.
If someone shoves a bunch of pamphlets in my hands, I'm allowed to dump them in the trash.
Private business and private individuals are free to set whatever rules they like about your behavior in their establishments.
They're also allowed to just not listen or want to repeat it.
If someone shoves a bunch of pamphlets in my hands, I'm allowed to dump them in the trash.
So, what is extreme left to you?
Which groups, existent groups, are they?
This whole line of discussion seems to consist of some rich false equivalency being mediated by presuming the existence of equivalent opposing forces and then making them appear equal in size and threat by not talking about who they actually are.
Which groups, existent groups, are they?
This whole line of discussion seems to consist of some rich false equivalency being mediated by presuming the existence of equivalent opposing forces and then making them appear equal in size and threat by not talking about who they actually are.
They're the same racists on the left and the right extremes.
It's just, we had decades of wars and (justified) propaganda that thoroughly discredited fascism and their style of racism so it's easy to see how the right extremes is bad.
What the extreme left is doing on the other hand is a more modern variation of racism and totalitarianism. It's ostensibly driven by noble concepts like social justice but in reality devolves into racial discrimination, dogmatism and tribalism as is seen on far right, just with a different dogma and different racial preferences.
Maybe you find that particular dogma more agreeable, or maybe the ends justify the means for you, I dunno.
But if you genuinely look at the discussion on Twitter or Reddit and you don't see extreme left views upvoted as often as extreme right I don't really know what to tell you. I guess people on the far right don't recognize their own crowd as an extreme either, it's just normal and common sense to them too, dismissing any rough edges with the same excuses.
You want specific examples? Try being public about not fully supporting BLM. Not the literal slogan itself, but parts of everything else the movement and their leaders come with. See if anyone catches the nuance of your opinions as you're branded a racist for not falling in line. You don't even need to say anything racist, even a modicum of doubt in the dogma is seen as dogwhistling your obviously racist views.
Do you see a lot of sexism or racial slurs / offenses in what you personally read on the internet? I don't, but the parts that I frequent what I see are mostly leftist racism and sexism, blaming white people for what other white people did, generalizing straight white men as privileged, "sounds about white"... No, none of that rings a bell, or none of that sounds bad or important because <reasons>? Try switching white to black and see how that holds up. Feeling righteous and having noble reasons for racism and sexism doesn't make it right. That's how all racism is justified and never in history has it been the right way to go about treating people.
It's just, we had decades of wars and (justified) propaganda that thoroughly discredited fascism and their style of racism so it's easy to see how the right extremes is bad.
What the extreme left is doing on the other hand is a more modern variation of racism and totalitarianism. It's ostensibly driven by noble concepts like social justice but in reality devolves into racial discrimination, dogmatism and tribalism as is seen on far right, just with a different dogma and different racial preferences.
Maybe you find that particular dogma more agreeable, or maybe the ends justify the means for you, I dunno.
But if you genuinely look at the discussion on Twitter or Reddit and you don't see extreme left views upvoted as often as extreme right I don't really know what to tell you. I guess people on the far right don't recognize their own crowd as an extreme either, it's just normal and common sense to them too, dismissing any rough edges with the same excuses.
You want specific examples? Try being public about not fully supporting BLM. Not the literal slogan itself, but parts of everything else the movement and their leaders come with. See if anyone catches the nuance of your opinions as you're branded a racist for not falling in line. You don't even need to say anything racist, even a modicum of doubt in the dogma is seen as dogwhistling your obviously racist views.
Do you see a lot of sexism or racial slurs / offenses in what you personally read on the internet? I don't, but the parts that I frequent what I see are mostly leftist racism and sexism, blaming white people for what other white people did, generalizing straight white men as privileged, "sounds about white"... No, none of that rings a bell, or none of that sounds bad or important because <reasons>? Try switching white to black and see how that holds up. Feeling righteous and having noble reasons for racism and sexism doesn't make it right. That's how all racism is justified and never in history has it been the right way to go about treating people.
Ever try listening to NPR in recent years? It is really approaching the point of self parody. I would say that at least 80% of NPR "stories" have an explicitly stated racial angle and probably greater than 90% have a gender or race angle. It is literally almost the only thing NPR commentary and analysis segments talk about these days. Yes racism is bad. No it is not reasonable that every single segment is about how supposedly blacks, transgender blacks, illegal immigrants, etc, are victims. Even in coronavirus coverage it is all about race and a particular race at that. There is very little mention of anti-Asian hate crimes (often by blacks) almost no mention of interesting race facts, like the fact that Filipino American nurses were far more likely to die of Covid than other ethnic groups. Instead arcane stories, like African Americans in general are afraid of vaccines and that is okay because of the Tuskeegee experiments 50-60 years ago are aired.
Again racism is bad. But when CNN or NPR is spending a huge, gigantic amount of their airtime covering racial issues every single day it is a little perplexing. It would make sense if the goal was to manufacture racial tension as distraction from real issues. Maybe it is. If you constantly focus on the outrage of the day you can ignore the slow boiled frog of rising economic inequality over the past 20 years.
I am seriously interested in a study that quantified the number of NPR news analysis stories that contain explicit commentary on race in 2020. I bet it is over 80% meanwhile the black share of the population is around 12%. Seems to me it would make sense to have the number of stories more proportional to that.
Again racism is bad. But when CNN or NPR is spending a huge, gigantic amount of their airtime covering racial issues every single day it is a little perplexing. It would make sense if the goal was to manufacture racial tension as distraction from real issues. Maybe it is. If you constantly focus on the outrage of the day you can ignore the slow boiled frog of rising economic inequality over the past 20 years.
I am seriously interested in a study that quantified the number of NPR news analysis stories that contain explicit commentary on race in 2020. I bet it is over 80% meanwhile the black share of the population is around 12%. Seems to me it would make sense to have the number of stories more proportional to that.
Thank you for noting this, as I have found NPR to now be unbearable. I listened to it for over 30 years, and for the longest time it was one of my main sources. Now, like you say, they're like self-parody -- but not funny.
Clearly, they've chosen to see the world, and therefore report _every_ story, through a narrow set of prisms: race, ethnicity, gender [identity], sexual orientation, and class. I still tune in to them from time to time to check, and now I play a game: how long before I hear a reference to one of the above perspectives. In general, it's less than 2 minutes, and often less than 1. It's as though they're beating a drum, or like a mantra.
I hope that quality journalism returns someday.
Clearly, they've chosen to see the world, and therefore report _every_ story, through a narrow set of prisms: race, ethnicity, gender [identity], sexual orientation, and class. I still tune in to them from time to time to check, and now I play a game: how long before I hear a reference to one of the above perspectives. In general, it's less than 2 minutes, and often less than 1. It's as though they're beating a drum, or like a mantra.
I hope that quality journalism returns someday.
Of the 30 stories currently featured on the NPR website, 1 is about race
In the title. However, I am sure, having listened to NPR almost every day, that most of those stories contain an explicit "racial analysis" segment. It is also possible that the written content is less race obsessed than what airs on the radio. I know when I am listening to NPR driving to work I hear racially focused stories back to back every single day as if there was absolutely nothing else interesting to talk about.
If you had evidence you would have already presented it, i looked through a couple of articles and nothing about race. im not going to waste more time to confirm what i already know
While I also do not have time to do an analysis right now, and as I mentioned radio content may be different from web content, the number of upvotes my initial comment calling out NPR got suggests my opinion is not unusual.
Remember when NPR deliberately took a video out of context to portray peaceful protesters attacking a random car as if the driver was some sort of white supremacist who tried to hit them on purpose?
https://thefederalist.com/2020/06/22/npr-falsely-calls-victi...
https://thefederalist.com/2020/06/22/npr-falsely-calls-victi...
They used that photo on an unrelated story, the photo had nothing to do with the story. nice try though. Just admit you were wrong, its ok
But that's exactly what's being said. The photo has nothing to do with the story. NPR admitted as much. https://twitter.com/NPR/status/1274809408262938624
But your tone suggests that you disagree with something.
But your tone suggests that you disagree with something.
The implication was that npr was smearing this woman, rather than the editors being lazy. All in service to the argument that npr focuses on race, despite there being no evidence
https://archive.is/ilHur
> One person was hit by a car in downtown Louisville, Kentucky, early on June 17 as protesters held an anti-racism demonstration at Jefferson Square, police said.
The story might be unrelated, but they knew exactly where it came from.
> One person was hit by a car in downtown Louisville, Kentucky, early on June 17 as protesters held an anti-racism demonstration at Jefferson Square, police said.
The story might be unrelated, but they knew exactly where it came from.
> I am seriously interested in a study that quantified the number of NPR news analysis stories that contain explicit commentary on race in 2020. I bet it is over 80% meanwhile the black share of the population is around 12%. Seems to me it would make sense to have the number of stories more proportional to that.
What is the connection in your thinking between the proportion of stories that analyze race and the percent of black people in the US?
What is the connection in your thinking between the proportion of stories that analyze race and the percent of black people in the US?
Almost all NPR stories that analyse race concern "black or brown" people. Why do you think that a disproportionate amount of content should be generated focusing on one issue? If my premise is correct, that more than 12% of NPR content contains racial analysis, I don't feel that the burden is on me to explain why I think this is an unjustified proportion. There are other interesting things to talk about in the world and time is limited. That's why. Why should one issue pre-empt others day in and day out?
Why does the news spend so much time on sports coverage? Only like 0.0001% of the population play sports professionally.
Well sports news is entertainment. There are specialised sports reporters and sports segments. Sports fans don't usually burn down city blocks when their team loses. Maybe identity politics outrage news is also serving a market demand. However it should be clear if the news is not proactive and tethered to underlying reality, i.e. if police are not actually racist as portrayed by CNN then the net social effect of such fake news is clearly negative. I don't think there is a such thing as fake sports news. There is clearly fake business news. When the media promotes ideas like ubiquitous AI and self driving cars it leads to malinvestment.
They do a lot more political coverage, and the number of professional politicians is probably similar.
Thinking it is an unjustified proportion seems exceedingly racist on your part. The equivalency between proportion of attention paid to harmed groups and size of the group, especially for groups as large as ~12%, is inherently quite an extreme racist stance to take.
I’m sure you wouldn’t agree, but that’s exactly the problem. As long as we’ve got people acting like NPR’s current amount of coverage including racial angles is somehow “unjustified” then we clearly need to terraform more and more racial angle of content into the discussion to educate that racist ignorance out of existence.
The same is true for sexism and poverty as well.
I’m sure you wouldn’t agree, but that’s exactly the problem. As long as we’ve got people acting like NPR’s current amount of coverage including racial angles is somehow “unjustified” then we clearly need to terraform more and more racial angle of content into the discussion to educate that racist ignorance out of existence.
The same is true for sexism and poverty as well.
In a world where resources including time are scarce there is something to be gained from allocating time toward beneficial activities. I got to stop interacting with this thread now to practice what I preach.
I listen most every morning. It has absolutely become this. "Fresh Air" in particular more often than not has a racial/gender slant to it.
The radio is different from the website.
The radio is different from the website.
You didn't really answer GP's question, can you be a little more specific about which groups and individuals you perceive as left-extremist?
I mean, people write a lot of crap on the Internet. It seems to me that you chose to perceive these people as leftist, rather than them proving it by participating in some kind of leftist organization or at least producing some left-leaning writing.
I mean, people write a lot of crap on the Internet. It seems to me that you chose to perceive these people as leftist, rather than them proving it by participating in some kind of leftist organization or at least producing some left-leaning writing.
Come on, I even gave you specific examples of specific issues that are widely recognized to be leftist. Denying it is like denying that anti-black racism is a predominantly right wing extreme.
Yup. Try saying, with genuine honest neutrality, “all lives matter”, “it’s ok to be white”, or “capitalism doesn’t care about race/gender” and see what happens.
All three of these phrases are political slogans. They are inherently associated with a set of political views, because they exist specifically to oppose another set of views and slogans.
It’s unreasonable to echo a political slogan in public and then complain that people don’t assume your neutrality. You cannot say “it’s okay to be white” and expect others to consider it neutral, in much the same way that you can’t say “blood and soil”.
It’s unreasonable to echo a political slogan in public and then complain that people don’t assume your neutrality. You cannot say “it’s okay to be white” and expect others to consider it neutral, in much the same way that you can’t say “blood and soil”.
It's the other way around: these phrases are neutral observations and reasonable opinions, perhaps reasonable reactions to insanity of well-known political slogans - importantly, it's something a random person can come up independently, without reading the exact words first. But at some point, these phrases rapidly become politicized, and this catches a lot of people off guard.
You voice your thoughts, fully expecting the audience to consider it neutral, but it so happens that your words pattern-match to a phrase that became a political slogan somewhen in the last few months, and boom, your audience hates you. You just stepped on a political landmine[0].
It seems to me than in the past 5-10 years, social discourse became littered with such political landmines, and at this rate, it's very hard to keep up with the list of phrases that can blow up in your face.
--
[0] - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25968760
You voice your thoughts, fully expecting the audience to consider it neutral, but it so happens that your words pattern-match to a phrase that became a political slogan somewhen in the last few months, and boom, your audience hates you. You just stepped on a political landmine[0].
It seems to me than in the past 5-10 years, social discourse became littered with such political landmines, and at this rate, it's very hard to keep up with the list of phrases that can blow up in your face.
--
[0] - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25968760
That's only true in the sense that every phrase can be a "neutral observation" if you choose to ignore the context in which it is used and the associations it has.
It's the same concept as dogwhistling at its core. Like the terms "urban", or "big government", or "states' rights", or "law and order". Completely "neutral phrases" that are often used to communicate a hidden message with plausible deniability. I mean after all, who could disagree that "all lives matter" – it's obvious isn't it?
I don't really accept it's all that hard to be aware of the implications of the language you use to communicate. I suppose you might theoretically step on a "landmine", but I'll tell you what – I am virtually certain that nobody who has said "it's okay to be white" to their audience has accidentally stumbled upon a neutral phrase with good intentions.
It's the same concept as dogwhistling at its core. Like the terms "urban", or "big government", or "states' rights", or "law and order". Completely "neutral phrases" that are often used to communicate a hidden message with plausible deniability. I mean after all, who could disagree that "all lives matter" – it's obvious isn't it?
I don't really accept it's all that hard to be aware of the implications of the language you use to communicate. I suppose you might theoretically step on a "landmine", but I'll tell you what – I am virtually certain that nobody who has said "it's okay to be white" to their audience has accidentally stumbled upon a neutral phrase with good intentions.
>Like the terms "urban", or "big government", or "states' rights", or "law and order". Completely "neutral phrases" that are often used to communicate a hidden message with plausible deniability.
These are terms used earnestly in neutral ways by academics, professionals and bureaucrats from all over the political spectrum. Does anyone seriously thing the NHTSA or some sociology professor is dog whistling when they use words like "urban environments" or "law and order"?
Yes, you can communicate a hidden message with them but you can communicate a hidden message with damn near any words in the english language if you want to.
These are terms used earnestly in neutral ways by academics, professionals and bureaucrats from all over the political spectrum. Does anyone seriously thing the NHTSA or some sociology professor is dog whistling when they use words like "urban environments" or "law and order"?
Yes, you can communicate a hidden message with them but you can communicate a hidden message with damn near any words in the english language if you want to.
The other side of this is that opponents always try to create negative associations for whatever they oppose.
So then someone whose politics favors authoritarianism and centralization will propose some federal power grab, opponents will make arguments favoring local control and the authoritarians will try to tar them with slavery and Jim Crow even if the subject is unrelated, e.g. whether the FDA should be overruling the states on whether or not to ban a thing in their state.
It's essentially an attempt to prevent anyone from taking the neutral position by making an accusation of guilt by association. Nazis are bad, Nazis built roads, therefore roads are bad.
So then someone whose politics favors authoritarianism and centralization will propose some federal power grab, opponents will make arguments favoring local control and the authoritarians will try to tar them with slavery and Jim Crow even if the subject is unrelated, e.g. whether the FDA should be overruling the states on whether or not to ban a thing in their state.
It's essentially an attempt to prevent anyone from taking the neutral position by making an accusation of guilt by association. Nazis are bad, Nazis built roads, therefore roads are bad.
There was no "all lives matter" until there was "black lives matter" and people wanted to say they don't like the message.
It is quite dishonest to claim that this phrase is neutral and not a political slogan.
It is quite dishonest to claim that this phrase is neutral and not a political slogan.
[deleted]
It’s a restatement of the first and most widely-known principle of the Unitarian Universalist Association [1]. I think that is why it resonates with many people.
Those people are then caught off-guard when they use the phrase and find themselves labeled “racist.”
I just don’t see how the vilification of a specific phrasing of a common sentiment moves us forward. To me it feels like playing power games with words.
[1]: https://www.uua.org/beliefs/what-we-believe/principles/1st
Those people are then caught off-guard when they use the phrase and find themselves labeled “racist.”
I just don’t see how the vilification of a specific phrasing of a common sentiment moves us forward. To me it feels like playing power games with words.
[1]: https://www.uua.org/beliefs/what-we-believe/principles/1st
I think you are forgetting what it was like when the "black lives matter" slogan was first becoming popular. If hadn't already been exposed to it, it was very easy to respond "incorrectly".
For example, here's a case of a Democratic governor, running for president, getting caught by this:
https://www.cnn.com/2015/07/18/politics/martin-omalley-all-l...
And here is Hillary Clinton, falling into the same trap:
https://www.npr.org/sections/itsallpolitics/2015/06/24/41711...
For example, here's a case of a Democratic governor, running for president, getting caught by this:
https://www.cnn.com/2015/07/18/politics/martin-omalley-all-l...
And here is Hillary Clinton, falling into the same trap:
https://www.npr.org/sections/itsallpolitics/2015/06/24/41711...
> We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness
Textually, that can be read as a fancied-up version of "all lives matter". Semantically at the time, it most certainly did not have an everyday lived reality that all people were equal.
At the time, women couldn't vote, Black people could be owned, and all people could be indentured servants, which significantly undermines the "Thomas Jefferson said 'All Lives Matter' almost 250 years ago" argument.
At the time, women couldn't vote, Black people could be owned, and all people could be indentured servants, which significantly undermines the "Thomas Jefferson said 'All Lives Matter' almost 250 years ago" argument.
But the Constitution has been amended to correct those issues. Why use the past when the present supports OP's statement?
If OP’s point was that Thomas Jefferson said something close to “All Lives Matter” 250 years ago in the Declaration of Independence, therefore it’s not a reaction to “Black Lives Matter” today, it seems most reasonable to examine the contemporaneous context of the original words.
What happened is that people heard the phrase "black lives matter", and were uncomfortable with the racial specificity. They wanted to _clarify_ it with the true fundamental principle.
Why do black lives matter? Because: All lives matter.
That is a non-racist perspective, and it was attacked viciously because it undercuts a propaganda effort.
Why do black lives matter? Because: All lives matter.
That is a non-racist perspective, and it was attacked viciously because it undercuts a propaganda effort.
> They wanted to _clarify_ it with the true fundamental principle.
I don't think that's an honest portrayal of the actual actions that took place or their motivations. In the context of disproportionate black deaths, mischaracterizing focusing on that specific issue:
1) does not inspire any positive change itself,
2) prevents positive change by demonizing those who are bringing awareness to and proposing solutions to the problem.
Rarely do you see the "all lives matter" crowd calling for increased police accountability; in fact, given their close association with Blue Lives Matter, I believe those who throw the slogan around tend to fight for quite the opposite.
I don't think that's an honest portrayal of the actual actions that took place or their motivations. In the context of disproportionate black deaths, mischaracterizing focusing on that specific issue:
1) does not inspire any positive change itself,
2) prevents positive change by demonizing those who are bringing awareness to and proposing solutions to the problem.
Rarely do you see the "all lives matter" crowd calling for increased police accountability; in fact, given their close association with Blue Lives Matter, I believe those who throw the slogan around tend to fight for quite the opposite.
There was no "all lives matter" until there was "black lives matter" and people wanted to say they don't like the message.
People wanted to say they don't like being left out of the message.
Nobody seriously opposed "black lives matter", but noticed that proponents of that phrase got vicious when faced with "all lives matter"; the latter is not a political slogan, but a litmus test for racism.
People wanted to say they don't like being left out of the message.
Nobody seriously opposed "black lives matter", but noticed that proponents of that phrase got vicious when faced with "all lives matter"; the latter is not a political slogan, but a litmus test for racism.
Political only insofar as they call out the disingenuous nature of their opponents' unopposable slogans. I absolutely can, and do, say "it's okay to be white" because there should be absolutely nothing inherently & politically wrong with my skin color - and the phrase was developed to bely the imputed virtue of those who reveal their true stance by freaking out over it.
Do black lives matter? absolutely, of course. Is it okay for me to be white? why is your response to berate me for saying so?
Do black lives matter? absolutely, of course. Is it okay for me to be white? why is your response to berate me for saying so?
Because there is no "genuine honest neutrality" behind those phrases. They're shibboleths. They're commonly understood slogans, used to indicate what side you're on (or at least what side you're opposed to) while SOUNDING innocent. The people who know, will KNOW what you mean when you say them.
(And in the incredibly unlikely situation where you'd somehow been exposed to enough of the discourse to come up with these phrases on their own, but NOT so much that you hadn't heard them yet, they're still terrible concepts that have been roundly denounced on their own merits. For just one example: https://www.instagram.com/p/CAsrVFXD3Ju/?utm_source=ig_embed...)
(And in the incredibly unlikely situation where you'd somehow been exposed to enough of the discourse to come up with these phrases on their own, but NOT so much that you hadn't heard them yet, they're still terrible concepts that have been roundly denounced on their own merits. For just one example: https://www.instagram.com/p/CAsrVFXD3Ju/?utm_source=ig_embed...)
If you define away neutrality, there is no neutrality, yes. But does everyone agree with your definition?
This seems more like a "you're with us or against us" trick.
"I care about protecting all children" is still neutral, right? But if someone popularized "ICAPBC", by your argument "ICAPAC" would innately become a shibboleth? Something doesn't seem right here, where neutral positions automatically get converted to dog-whistles without any proof.
This seems more like a "you're with us or against us" trick.
"I care about protecting all children" is still neutral, right? But if someone popularized "ICAPBC", by your argument "ICAPAC" would innately become a shibboleth? Something doesn't seem right here, where neutral positions automatically get converted to dog-whistles without any proof.
What is neutrality in this scenario? BLM is about protesting anti-black racial injustice in the criminal justice system. Is neutral ground that there is no injustice? That it doesn't matter?
Yes, there was violence at a small fraction of protests, and it's fair to have pushback on that. That seems a separate issue than rejecting BLM on the face of it with an expression like ALM.
Yes, there was violence at a small fraction of protests, and it's fair to have pushback on that. That seems a separate issue than rejecting BLM on the face of it with an expression like ALM.
Neutral ground is that injustice is wrong, no matter who it happens to. It's wrong when it happens to blacks, it's wrong when it happens to Asians, it's wrong when it happens to Hispanics, and it's wrong when it happens to whites. That's neutral.
From there, you look around and you see that blacks and Hispanics seem to have injustice happening to them in ways that don't often happen to whites. (Not sure about Asians; but my perception is that they may experience injustice, but less of it than blacks.) And then, coming from a position that all injustice matters, when you seen injustice happening more to specific groups, you say "That injustice matters." Not that it's the only injustice that matters, or that other injustice doesn't, but that specific injustice seems to happen a lot, and it's not OK. We need to do something about it.
From there, you look around and you see that blacks and Hispanics seem to have injustice happening to them in ways that don't often happen to whites. (Not sure about Asians; but my perception is that they may experience injustice, but less of it than blacks.) And then, coming from a position that all injustice matters, when you seen injustice happening more to specific groups, you say "That injustice matters." Not that it's the only injustice that matters, or that other injustice doesn't, but that specific injustice seems to happen a lot, and it's not OK. We need to do something about it.
I see your example of a neutral stance, and it’s true, and racially neutral. It’s also not relevant to the conversation around BLM, which focuses on anti-black injustice. I take issue with that ALM is used to subvert BLM; why else would the phrase exist and popularize at this time and context? Therefore, ALM is not an assertion of the neutral stance you propose, but instead a rejection of the reality or importance of race-specific injustice.
"The lives of people to whom injustice happens due to extra-judicial murders by the police, who are predominantly black matter and should be considered" doesn't exactly roll off the tongue.
In contrast "Black Lives Matter" describes the issue exactly, succinctly and pithily. As a bonus it outs the people who want to remain willfully ignorant about it.
In contrast "Black Lives Matter" describes the issue exactly, succinctly and pithily. As a bonus it outs the people who want to remain willfully ignorant about it.
I'd be curious what you think of "Ghettoside" - a book from the left that examines the claims implied by your linked comic about the nature of the suffering we are trying to prevent: https://www.vox.com/2016/8/26/12631962/ghettoside-jill-leovy...
My mother could not be any less exposed to the “discourse,” and yet she has spoken variants of the first two phrases to me. I believe they may just be common sentiments in the Deep South.
> they're still terrible concepts that have been roundly denounced on their own merits
Hol' up, "it is ok to be white," is a terrible concept denounced on its own merits? Lol ok
It's a good thing that under Critical Theory, since race is a social construction (that's why Black is supposed to be capitalized, because it refers to the construction, not the color) there's no reason besides being "roundly denounced" (which will happen eventually to you anyway if you're an untermensch White) that you can't be transracial.
I'm not White, I'm a light tan person. Get off my lawn with your racist Theory.
Hol' up, "it is ok to be white," is a terrible concept denounced on its own merits? Lol ok
It's a good thing that under Critical Theory, since race is a social construction (that's why Black is supposed to be capitalized, because it refers to the construction, not the color) there's no reason besides being "roundly denounced" (which will happen eventually to you anyway if you're an untermensch White) that you can't be transracial.
I'm not White, I'm a light tan person. Get off my lawn with your racist Theory.
You are falling into the trap that was explicitly set up by trolls. If it was not well known to be explicitly set up by trolls, "it is ok to be white” would be a fine, boring statement.
But, it has been established that chan trolls came together to figure out a slogan that they could use to stir up heated arguments exactly like you are making. They settled on "it is ok to be white" and started using it to troll people into saying things that can be interpreted as hating white people. Then the arguments based on misunderstanding start and trolls laugh at you while they feed on your outrage and frustration.
But, it has been established that chan trolls came together to figure out a slogan that they could use to stir up heated arguments exactly like you are making. They settled on "it is ok to be white" and started using it to troll people into saying things that can be interpreted as hating white people. Then the arguments based on misunderstanding start and trolls laugh at you while they feed on your outrage and frustration.
I'm pretty sure he's not the one who's falling into a trap here, precisely for the reasons you mentioned.
the fact that it's so effective says more about society than the trolls though. if you squint hard enough, it's almost like the reactions provoked when you say "anti-white racism doesn't exist" without further explanation. it's true under the modern definition, but sometimes hard to take in good faith.
The phrase was set up by trolls explicitly to root out those who do not, after all, use corresponding phrases in good faith (and once rooted out, then played). It absolutely should be a fine, boring statement - and its brilliance is that it's not the trolls that make it a trap, but those who choose to fight it.
God help the mixed race people who have it from both the left and right...
I grew up reasonably familiar with devout Christian culture, and one of the things they were absolutely convinced of is that society was filled with anti-Christian shibboleths. When someone said "let's build a tolerant society" or "climate change is an important problem", those might sound like neutral descriptors, but they knew not to be deceived. Obviously, in their view, nobody actually cares about tolerance or climate change - those phrases are just slogans people use to signal their allegiance to the anti-Christian agenda.
I'm sure you can see the problem there, and I would encourage you to think about whether you've fallen down a similar hole.
I'm sure you can see the problem there, and I would encourage you to think about whether you've fallen down a similar hole.
Siege mentality is real. I'm not sure I see the connection in this case to the racial issues. "All Lives Matter" is clearly a reaction to "Black Lives Matter."
Respectfully, it seems clear because you're living under a siege mentality. "All Lives Matter" is a short phrase composed of common English words - some people do use it as a slogan to oppose the BLM movement, but others use it as a compact expression of the idea that every human's life has value. When Jennifer Lopez tweeted "#AllLivesMatter #LoveMakeTheWorldGoRound" over a picture of herself holding hands with Lin-Manuel Miranda and rainbow flags waving in the foreground, is it really plausible that she was declaring her allegiance to anti-BLM groups?
You don’t believe that recent popular usage of ALM is related to BLM?
No. Again, it seems impossible to believe that JLo (and Hilary Clinton, and Fetty Wap, and...) said All Lives Matter as a covert signal they don't like the BLM movement. I'm sure some people somewhere have said it to troll, but I think the concern over the phrase is mostly a moral panic.
> They're commonly understood slogans, used to indicate what side you're on (or at least what side you're opposed to) while SOUNDING innocent.
This confusion was created the other side's choice of name, whether purposely or not.
You start off with a phrase like Black Lives Matter. This is clearly a political slogan designed to provoke opponents into taking the negation of it, i.e. into claiming that black lives don't matter.
The problem with it is that it's too clever by half, because it gives opponents the ability to claim the middle. All Lives Matter.
And it's a two party system so now both the center and the right are standing under the banner of the neutral slogan. Now BLM declares that ALM are really just a bunch of secret racists because otherwise they have to eat the rhetorical self-own.
But this is just an attempt to reassert the politically-motivated original framing, i.e. that anyone who disagrees with any BLM political position -- even if the disagreement comes from the center -- is saying they think black lives don't matter. Which is not necessarily the case.
This confusion was created the other side's choice of name, whether purposely or not.
You start off with a phrase like Black Lives Matter. This is clearly a political slogan designed to provoke opponents into taking the negation of it, i.e. into claiming that black lives don't matter.
The problem with it is that it's too clever by half, because it gives opponents the ability to claim the middle. All Lives Matter.
And it's a two party system so now both the center and the right are standing under the banner of the neutral slogan. Now BLM declares that ALM are really just a bunch of secret racists because otherwise they have to eat the rhetorical self-own.
But this is just an attempt to reassert the politically-motivated original framing, i.e. that anyone who disagrees with any BLM political position -- even if the disagreement comes from the center -- is saying they think black lives don't matter. Which is not necessarily the case.
“All lives matter” is not a neutral slogan when it is said in the context of the death penalty, nor is it neutral when spoken as a response to “Black lives matter”. It is only neutral when spoken out side of any political context.
[deleted]
This kind of reaction is what phrases like "it's okay to be white" and "all lives matter" are meant to elicit. It's exactly what trolls want you to do. The other 90% of the population is appalled. Is it not okay to be white? Do some lives not matter?
You're being played.
You're being played.
There are people explicitly saying that no, it's not OK to be white - that if you're white you are automatically racist, and automatically guilty for what happened in the past. White Fragility is an example.
"It's OK to be white" isn't just a dogwhistle. (It may be that, but it isn't just that.) It's an explicit rejection of that kind of "all whites are guilty racists" baloney.
"It's OK to be white" isn't just a dogwhistle. (It may be that, but it isn't just that.) It's an explicit rejection of that kind of "all whites are guilty racists" baloney.
That's what makes it such an effective troll. If it was simply obviously bad from all conceivable contexts it wouldn't work. But, you are still being trolled. And, you are playing right into their game. They are getting you to sing their slogan and laughing at you the whole time.
Yes, there are some people out there in social media who have taken to hating white people for being white. That's not OK. Call it out. But, don't dance for the trolls in the process.
Yes, there are some people out there in social media who have taken to hating white people for being white. That's not OK. Call it out. But, don't dance for the trolls in the process.
I thought we were talking about the people who have taken to hating white people for being white?
But you said they were trolls? And we should call it out? Isn't that what the poster above you was doing?
Talking in circles, in circles...
But you said they were trolls? And we should call it out? Isn't that what the poster above you was doing?
Talking in circles, in circles...
You've mixed up the groups.
There's the group of anti-white haters who need to be called out. There's the vast majority of people who don't want any form of racial hatred. And, then there's the white supremacist trolls (and just plain trolls) who want to trick the vast majority of people into fighting themselves and in the process make it look like anti-white hatred is much, much more common than it really is.
"It's OK to be white" is a troll campaign that is actively being used to bait people into fighting each other and to have both sides come out thinking the other is far more racist than they really are.
There's the group of anti-white haters who need to be called out. There's the vast majority of people who don't want any form of racial hatred. And, then there's the white supremacist trolls (and just plain trolls) who want to trick the vast majority of people into fighting themselves and in the process make it look like anti-white hatred is much, much more common than it really is.
"It's OK to be white" is a troll campaign that is actively being used to bait people into fighting each other and to have both sides come out thinking the other is far more racist than they really are.
Is Hispanic Lives Matter a shibboleth? How about Asian Lives Matter?
Shibboleths? Those phrases are intended to identify unifying intent vs deception intending division. I agree "black lives matter"; can you agree "all lives matter" and "it's OK to be white" and thus support us working together for mutual betterment? or will you viciously attack the phrases, belying your intent to divide us?
Is a phrase a "shibboleth" when intended to promote peace, unity, and mutual aid?
Is a phrase a "shibboleth" when intended to promote peace, unity, and mutual aid?
All three of these are reasonable statements if you remove all contemporary social context. Nobody does that, and the people who use these slogans know that. They're using the difference between abstract context-free understanding and contextual understanding as a gaslighting technique, making obviously political statements and then pretending there is no context and hiding behind "but that's a reasonable statement!"
Consider, alternately, these three statements:
"The social contract applies equally to all instances of human life."
"We should eliminate shame in connection with anyone's race, heritage, or other aspects of their origin over which they have no control."
"There is nothing inherent in markets that perpetuates racial prejudice."
These mean about the same thing but are formulated in a way that avoids this kind of gaslighting doublespeak. It's not hard to do. I doubt those statements would offend anyone.
I assume anyone saying "all lives matter" is racist precisely because it is so damn easy to say the same thing neutrally.
Consider, alternately, these three statements:
"The social contract applies equally to all instances of human life."
"We should eliminate shame in connection with anyone's race, heritage, or other aspects of their origin over which they have no control."
"There is nothing inherent in markets that perpetuates racial prejudice."
These mean about the same thing but are formulated in a way that avoids this kind of gaslighting doublespeak. It's not hard to do. I doubt those statements would offend anyone.
I assume anyone saying "all lives matter" is racist precisely because it is so damn easy to say the same thing neutrally.
This game is fun:
> "The social contract applies equally to all instances of human life."
Clearly you're making an argument against abortion.
> "We should eliminate shame in connection with anyone's race, heritage, or other aspects of their origin over which they have no control."
Pedophiles make this argument to justify their urges.
> "There is nothing inherent in markets that perpetuates racial prejudice."
This one might as well be All Lives Matter. It's the common retort against claims of algorithmic racial bias and was used historically in the South to oppose government-mandated desegregation.
These are the claims you're using as examples of neutrality, until somebody puts them in a frame where they're not.
You can do that with everything because even an actually neutral claim is an opposition to a non-neutral claim by someone else, and therefore has political implications.
> "The social contract applies equally to all instances of human life."
Clearly you're making an argument against abortion.
> "We should eliminate shame in connection with anyone's race, heritage, or other aspects of their origin over which they have no control."
Pedophiles make this argument to justify their urges.
> "There is nothing inherent in markets that perpetuates racial prejudice."
This one might as well be All Lives Matter. It's the common retort against claims of algorithmic racial bias and was used historically in the South to oppose government-mandated desegregation.
These are the claims you're using as examples of neutrality, until somebody puts them in a frame where they're not.
You can do that with everything because even an actually neutral claim is an opposition to a non-neutral claim by someone else, and therefore has political implications.
A quick search of 'Marion Gerald Hood Emory University rejection letter' will show how even in 1959, blacks were treated like scum.
There are ways to get an idea of the reality of black people. For those who are ok with videos, here are some good but enjoyable ones. You may use 'NewPipe' from fdroid or the youtube-dl command line utility to download them:
[1] How to pretend systemic racism does not exist? (with eng subtitles) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O4ciwjHVHYg
[2] Let's talk about what it's like to be a black person in the US. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WD8mWq0Hdcw
[3] Let's talk about being armed and black. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zL_IX8yX_JU
[4] How cops are trained to shoot you in your home. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tuzQrbio2Qw
Other resources include James Baldwin's books and documentaries. His 'The Fire Next Time' is just 120 pages [5].
'The Price of the Ticket' and 'I Am Not Your Negro' are good documentaries [6][7].
[5] https://www.amazon.com/Fire-Next-Time-James-Baldwin/dp/06797...
[6] https://www.amazon.com/James-Baldwin-Price-Ticket/dp/B01M25W...
[7] https://www.amazon.com/I-Am-Not-Your-Negro/dp/B01MR52U7T
[8] Also the 1965 Baldwin and Buckley debate on the theme "Has the American dream been achieved at the expense of the American negro?" > https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FxLUbKebYvc
English subtitle download: https://amara.org/en/videos/dGI1henIPVYS/en/1338731/
There are ways to get an idea of the reality of black people. For those who are ok with videos, here are some good but enjoyable ones. You may use 'NewPipe' from fdroid or the youtube-dl command line utility to download them:
[1] How to pretend systemic racism does not exist? (with eng subtitles) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O4ciwjHVHYg
[2] Let's talk about what it's like to be a black person in the US. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WD8mWq0Hdcw
[3] Let's talk about being armed and black. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zL_IX8yX_JU
[4] How cops are trained to shoot you in your home. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tuzQrbio2Qw
Other resources include James Baldwin's books and documentaries. His 'The Fire Next Time' is just 120 pages [5].
'The Price of the Ticket' and 'I Am Not Your Negro' are good documentaries [6][7].
[5] https://www.amazon.com/Fire-Next-Time-James-Baldwin/dp/06797...
[6] https://www.amazon.com/James-Baldwin-Price-Ticket/dp/B01M25W...
[7] https://www.amazon.com/I-Am-Not-Your-Negro/dp/B01MR52U7T
[8] Also the 1965 Baldwin and Buckley debate on the theme "Has the American dream been achieved at the expense of the American negro?" > https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FxLUbKebYvc
English subtitle download: https://amara.org/en/videos/dGI1henIPVYS/en/1338731/
If you move this comment one level up it sounds like a clear distinction from the racist right. Making it clear that GP was engaging in a false equivalence. One might say: In a different context this comment is accidentally leftist.
You see the context in which you say things matter. If you should “all lives matter” in response to the death penalty, I bet you’d be met with a ton of leftist support. However if you say it in response to “black lives matter” it is pretty clear that you disagree.
You see the context in which you say things matter. If you should “all lives matter” in response to the death penalty, I bet you’d be met with a ton of leftist support. However if you say it in response to “black lives matter” it is pretty clear that you disagree.
"All lives matter" is a totally meaningless phrase outside the context of "black lives matter".
The only reason to say "all lives matter" is to trivialize the phrase "black lives matter". It may appeal to neutrality, but the context is far from neutral.
The only reason to say "all lives matter" is to trivialize the phrase "black lives matter". It may appeal to neutrality, but the context is far from neutral.
Has any rigorous study shown that blacks are more likely to die in police encounters after adjusting for income level and crime rate of where the encounter takes place?
If so please provide a cite or link.
Although out of thousands of cops in the USA I am sure there are some genuine racists the notion that in 2020 cops would be killing blacks intentionally at a higher rate seems ridiculous. 99.999% of cops want to have an easy shift, get a donut or two, write a couple tickets, watch the years go by, retire early and collect a pension. Plenty of poor and middle class whites have been killed by abusive individual cops over the years and yet the reaction is not tribalism, rioting or generalising the actions of few bad cops to the police force as a whole. I agree America has massive problem with overly militarised police but this is not a racial issue. It stems from the drug war and the ease with which criminals can get high powered weapons in America. See North Hollywood Shootout.
See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shooting_of_Daniel_Shaver
If so please provide a cite or link.
Although out of thousands of cops in the USA I am sure there are some genuine racists the notion that in 2020 cops would be killing blacks intentionally at a higher rate seems ridiculous. 99.999% of cops want to have an easy shift, get a donut or two, write a couple tickets, watch the years go by, retire early and collect a pension. Plenty of poor and middle class whites have been killed by abusive individual cops over the years and yet the reaction is not tribalism, rioting or generalising the actions of few bad cops to the police force as a whole. I agree America has massive problem with overly militarised police but this is not a racial issue. It stems from the drug war and the ease with which criminals can get high powered weapons in America. See North Hollywood Shootout.
See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shooting_of_Daniel_Shaver
The reason we just had the largest civil rights protests in American history this summer has as much or more to do with the everyday experience with the police as it does the extraordinary events such as deaths. Deaths were the spark, not the fuel.
The grinding oppression of every day life in terms of policing has been shown in study after study. It is disproportionately felt by black people, mostly men, but it has been steadily expanding to all demographics for decades now.
| Plenty of poor and middle class whites
Yeah and a lot of poor and middle class white people were out supporting the protests because of their own experiences too.
Daniel Shaver's death is not argument against BLM's goals, it's an argument in favor of them.
The grinding oppression of every day life in terms of policing has been shown in study after study. It is disproportionately felt by black people, mostly men, but it has been steadily expanding to all demographics for decades now.
| Plenty of poor and middle class whites
Yeah and a lot of poor and middle class white people were out supporting the protests because of their own experiences too.
Daniel Shaver's death is not argument against BLM's goals, it's an argument in favor of them.
So what would be the problem with changing the name of the movement to ALM all lives matter and making the focus against police militarisation rather than some divisive narrative of racism?
Imagine you are at a dinner party and haven't eaten for a couple days. The guests don't realize this and are delaying dinner to chat, play games, what have you. Then finally someone says "hey morpehos137 is starving" and a large group of the guests dismiss this and say "We are all hungry" and continue to go about their business.
[deleted]
The vast majority of Americans understand that Black Lives Matter is an inclusive statement, not an exclusive one.
Those who make hay out of the name and have ignored the movement itself for almost a decade now are a small, ineffective minority.
The largest civil rights protest movement in American history doesn't need to spend its time focus-grouping and hand-wringing about people like that.
Those who make hay out of the name and have ignored the movement itself for almost a decade now are a small, ineffective minority.
The largest civil rights protest movement in American history doesn't need to spend its time focus-grouping and hand-wringing about people like that.
> The vast majority of Americans understand that Black Lives Matter is an inclusive statement, not an exclusive one.
Do they? I'm not sure what leads you to think that. I have no evidence other than anecdote, but from what I see, I'm not sure that your claim is true.
Do they? I'm not sure what leads you to think that. I have no evidence other than anecdote, but from what I see, I'm not sure that your claim is true.
No, the vast majority of Americans do not believe that at all
After 10 years of a movement that culminated in protests in 2000 cities in all 50 states and 5 territories that had supermajority support in polls, the people who are still ignorant enough, feigned or otherwise, to say BLM means Black Lives Only Matter are numerically and politically insignificant.
No movement has ever changed anything by seeking to get 100% of everyone on board, least of all those most uninformed, hostile, and acting in bad faith.
No movement has ever changed anything by seeking to get 100% of everyone on board, least of all those most uninformed, hostile, and acting in bad faith.
> Daniel Shaver's death is not argument against BLM's goals, it's an argument in favor of them.
Exactly. I've seen far more outrage about the death of a white man from those who say black lives matter than from those saying all lives matter.
Exactly. I've seen far more outrage about the death of a white man from those who say black lives matter than from those saying all lives matter.
Mhm. December 10, 2017. Two days after the video was released.
Shaver isn't the only non-Black victim of police violence that BLM has been involved in supporting either. While their focus has always been Black people, they have never operated in an exclusive way at all.
#BLM Activists Call Attention To Graphic Video Of Daniel Shaver's Death At The Hands Of Arizona Police
Black Lives Matter is against police brutality of all forms and against all people.
Shaver isn't the only non-Black victim of police violence that BLM has been involved in supporting either. While their focus has always been Black people, they have never operated in an exclusive way at all.
> after adjusting for income level and crime rate of where the encounter takes place
Please stop with this racist skewing of statistics. There are thousands of factors involved. A bad faith person will always be able to stack them up in a way that favors their cause. Experts in criminology pretty much agree that racial justice is a problem in urban and sub urban USA, including police violence. The only reason to disagree and to skew the statistics in your favor is to entertain racist believes.
Please stop with this racist skewing of statistics. There are thousands of factors involved. A bad faith person will always be able to stack them up in a way that favors their cause. Experts in criminology pretty much agree that racial justice is a problem in urban and sub urban USA, including police violence. The only reason to disagree and to skew the statistics in your favor is to entertain racist believes.
> Please stop with this racist skewing of statistics. There are thousands of factors involved.
But that's the whole point. If black people are disproportionately shot by police because police are racist, that's a problem with police. If it's because "thousands of factors" cause black people to have disproportionately more encounters with police, but the police themselves are acting with neutrality, then it's a problem somewhere else and you can't fix it through police reform.
The answer is fundamental if you actually want to solve the problem. But not evaluating it is convenient if you just want to keep using it as a political bludgeon forever, because by not even looking in the right places for a solution, the problem is never solved and you can run for office on it over and over.
But that's the whole point. If black people are disproportionately shot by police because police are racist, that's a problem with police. If it's because "thousands of factors" cause black people to have disproportionately more encounters with police, but the police themselves are acting with neutrality, then it's a problem somewhere else and you can't fix it through police reform.
The answer is fundamental if you actually want to solve the problem. But not evaluating it is convenient if you just want to keep using it as a political bludgeon forever, because by not even looking in the right places for a solution, the problem is never solved and you can run for office on it over and over.
I am not an expert on criminology. I only have a layman understanding of psychology from university so I can not tell you how the experts have reached a consensus on racial justice in urban USA is skewed against black people (but I bet there are other people on HN that can; if they are willing to spend the effort; which I doubt, since I am almost over this already).
But my layman understanding of psychology is enough to recognize how experts deal with large number factors in social models. You don’t just pick and choose (in fact that is what I’m accusing racists of doing). There is a large body of literature that experts consults. In an average social psychology study you find something like citations to 30-60 different works to back up something as trivial as a study on the stress relation effects of living in proximity to high noise pollution. It is anything but convenient. To the contrary, it is a ton of work. I’m sure expert criminologists have spent years doing nothing but familiarizing them self with the literature so they can best judge how do deal with different factors in their models. And if they do mess up (which I’m sure they do) the self correcting nature of the scientific method will make sure that the worlds knows how their models were erroneous, and subsequent models will take this extra knowledge into effect.
But my layman understanding of psychology is enough to recognize how experts deal with large number factors in social models. You don’t just pick and choose (in fact that is what I’m accusing racists of doing). There is a large body of literature that experts consults. In an average social psychology study you find something like citations to 30-60 different works to back up something as trivial as a study on the stress relation effects of living in proximity to high noise pollution. It is anything but convenient. To the contrary, it is a ton of work. I’m sure expert criminologists have spent years doing nothing but familiarizing them self with the literature so they can best judge how do deal with different factors in their models. And if they do mess up (which I’m sure they do) the self correcting nature of the scientific method will make sure that the worlds knows how their models were erroneous, and subsequent models will take this extra knowledge into effect.
So morpheos137 asks for statistics, you provide none, but accuse him/her of racist skewing of statistics. Um... pretty sure you're the one with the agenda here.
I am not a criminologists, whichever statistics I provide will be of as poor quality as theirs.
>Experts in criminology pretty much agree that racial justice is a problem in urban and sub urban USA, including police violence.
Because if they don't they are racist. Right?
To me racial justice means that you are not treated differently simply because of your race. In 2021 in America there is no evidence that people are treated differently just because of their race. There is plenty of evidence that people living in high crime areas, engaging in suspicious activities like passing counterfeit money while high on meth and fentanyl are treated differently from your average joe regardless of skin colour.
Because if they don't they are racist. Right?
To me racial justice means that you are not treated differently simply because of your race. In 2021 in America there is no evidence that people are treated differently just because of their race. There is plenty of evidence that people living in high crime areas, engaging in suspicious activities like passing counterfeit money while high on meth and fentanyl are treated differently from your average joe regardless of skin colour.
You clearly know they are dogwhistles. Just like saying sieg heil doesnt inherently mean anything racist, but everyone knows what you mean when you say it.
runarberg(1)
I say this as someone who doesn't identify with the right or really care about any of these politics at all.
Go google of a picture of the Minneapolis police department engulfed in flames shooting out 50 feet over the top. That was certainly a strongly predominantly left driven action.
Go google of a picture of the Minneapolis police department engulfed in flames shooting out 50 feet over the top. That was certainly a strongly predominantly left driven action.
The Minneapolis police department was set on fire by a "Boogaloo Boi".
... Ivan Harrison Hunter, a Texas rightwing extremist, bragged about helping to set the fire then was seen shooting 13 rounds at the building ... https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/oct/23/texas-boogaloo...
... Ivan Harrison Hunter, a Texas rightwing extremist, bragged about helping to set the fire then was seen shooting 13 rounds at the building ... https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/oct/23/texas-boogaloo...
[deleted]
There are about 500 people in those pictures. The fact that a right wing person got arrested means nothing. The George Floyd protests weren't right wing.
Boogaloos are far-right only in the sense that they're libertarians afaik.
> Video shot that night shows a person later identified as Hunter firing 13 rounds from a semiautomatic assault-style rifle on the 3rd precinct police station while people believed to be looters were inside. He then high-fived another person and shouted, “Justice for Floyd!” according to the complaint.
Doesn't seem like a person who you picture when you think about a "right-wing extremist".
> Video shot that night shows a person later identified as Hunter firing 13 rounds from a semiautomatic assault-style rifle on the 3rd precinct police station while people believed to be looters were inside. He then high-fived another person and shouted, “Justice for Floyd!” according to the complaint.
Doesn't seem like a person who you picture when you think about a "right-wing extremist".
It's a similar problem to the whole anti-fa thing. Both have groups organizing around a common idea. Opposition to fascism for anti-fascists and trying to bring about a second civil war for the Boogaloo Bois. Neither are a strict group that exists with a coherent ideology you can point to. Instead they are a name given to lots of groups.
With trying to incite a second civil war comes a lot of baggage associated with white supremacy and their dreams of the same thing along racial lines. So whilst not all groups are out and out racist a lot of them are just due to the people attracted to the idea. In particular when looking at people who are trying to incite a civil war upping the ante by shooting guns and setting buildings on fire we should be suspicious that the slogans they yell might not be in the interests of the cause but in inciting the government to respond and escalate things.
With trying to incite a second civil war comes a lot of baggage associated with white supremacy and their dreams of the same thing along racial lines. So whilst not all groups are out and out racist a lot of them are just due to the people attracted to the idea. In particular when looking at people who are trying to incite a civil war upping the ante by shooting guns and setting buildings on fire we should be suspicious that the slogans they yell might not be in the interests of the cause but in inciting the government to respond and escalate things.
> It's a similar problem to the whole anti-fa thing. Both have groups organizing around a common idea. [...] Neither are a strict group that exists with a coherent ideology you can point to. Instead they are a name given to lots of groups.
And the same goes for the loosely defined 'fascists', I guess?
And the same goes for the loosely defined 'fascists', I guess?
Yes of course. Fascist is a name given to lots of groups that subscribe to a broadly fascist ideology. Same as Marxist or conservative or liberal. This isn’t rocket science.
No one person was responsible for that fire or those riots. Even your source doesn't claim so, it only accuses him of "helping to set the fire".
> “I set fire to that precinct with the Black community,” and, “My mom would call the FBI if she knew.”
> “I’ve burned police stations with Black Panthers in Minneapolis,” he claimed in one message, and in another, “The BLM protesters in Minneapolis loved me.”
> “I set fire to that precinct with the Black community,” and, “My mom would call the FBI if she knew.”
> “I’ve burned police stations with Black Panthers in Minneapolis,” he claimed in one message, and in another, “The BLM protesters in Minneapolis loved me.”
We detached this subthread from https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26432675.
See but if you just say the left, you dont have to provide any evidence, you can say they believe anything without proving it
>Should we stop hate speech? What makes you think we can?
Can we even define hate speech?
If you think that you're going to eliminate discrimination or racism through banning speech by calling it 'hate speech' you're wrong.
When you ban 'hate speech' what gets banned is speech that the people in power hate.
In other words you're not stopping Nazis and people calling for genocide. That basically never happens. Instead those in political power use the hate speech laws to crush political activists and journalists.
Here is Canada for example, hate speech laws have been used against many comedians. Journalists quite often. Book authors even, there are examples where RCMP arrest and jail book authors because their book was critical of the government. No racism or threats of violence. No charges are ever filed and the book stays in publication.
Can we even define hate speech?
If you think that you're going to eliminate discrimination or racism through banning speech by calling it 'hate speech' you're wrong.
When you ban 'hate speech' what gets banned is speech that the people in power hate.
In other words you're not stopping Nazis and people calling for genocide. That basically never happens. Instead those in political power use the hate speech laws to crush political activists and journalists.
Here is Canada for example, hate speech laws have been used against many comedians. Journalists quite often. Book authors even, there are examples where RCMP arrest and jail book authors because their book was critical of the government. No racism or threats of violence. No charges are ever filed and the book stays in publication.
According to the authors logic, we should stop censoring fraud, false advertisement, child grooming, defamation, doxxing, false testimony, etc. because "it doesn't work" and "erodes free speech". This is clearly nonsense. It works, and it should be done, the only question as with all laws is were the line should be.
We restrict freedom in general when it hurts other people (slavery, rape, killing, trespassing,etc) and we don't go around crying about slippery slopes and lack of freedom for it.
Clear examples of good censoring of free speech are the courts decision in the Alex Jones - Sandy Hook case and the Washington Post paying reparations to Nathan Phillips (the child mocking the native American). In both cases their "free speech" caused damage to people and the court decided that they didn't were protect under the free speech laws.
We restrict freedom in general when it hurts other people (slavery, rape, killing, trespassing,etc) and we don't go around crying about slippery slopes and lack of freedom for it.
Clear examples of good censoring of free speech are the courts decision in the Alex Jones - Sandy Hook case and the Washington Post paying reparations to Nathan Phillips (the child mocking the native American). In both cases their "free speech" caused damage to people and the court decided that they didn't were protect under the free speech laws.
What the left also needs is a realization that some of its beliefs are akin to extremism. And some of the left inspired policies have really really hurt and isolated a significant population. The left needs to soften it's stand on such issues.
Please don't take HN threads further into generic ideological battle. The thread is crappy already, and it gets noticeably worse after swerving in directions like this.
We detached this subthread from https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26432620.
We detached this subthread from https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26432620.
What the right also needs is a realization that some of its beliefs are akin to extremism. And some of the right inspired policies have really really hurt and isolated a significant population. The right needs to soften it's stand on such issues.
It's such a generic statement that it's meaningless and could apply to any group of opinions.
It's such a generic statement that it's meaningless and could apply to any group of opinions.
Doesn't mean it's wrong... The racists on the right know they're racists. They admit it. The racists I've encountered on the left are the racism-of-low-expectations kind with a dash of openly-racist-against-white-people, and then they go and act morally superior to people who aren't racist against any race. The sanctimony is grating.
Disclaimer: I don't watch this channel, can't vouch for other vids.
The youtube algorithm suggested this to me the other day, posting it here because it's pretty relevant.
When Wokes and Racists actually agree on everything: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ev373c7wSRg
The youtube algorithm suggested this to me the other day, posting it here because it's pretty relevant.
When Wokes and Racists actually agree on everything: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ev373c7wSRg
bena(3)
Except it doesnt even resemble what the left believes
this is a good breakdown https://youtu.be/m0ZDHgD9084?t=950
this is a good breakdown https://youtu.be/m0ZDHgD9084?t=950
Thanks for the reasoned alternative perspective. He misses the whole point of the video though, which is:
Emphasizing race as the most important determinant of an individual is regressive, not progressive.
It's possible for a reactionary agenda to fall prey to the errors of its foe, and that's exactly what's happening with anti-racism today.
The only way to move forward is to tackle racism with explicitly non-racist policies, not anti-racist ones.
Emphasizing race as the most important determinant of an individual is regressive, not progressive.
It's possible for a reactionary agenda to fall prey to the errors of its foe, and that's exactly what's happening with anti-racism today.
The only way to move forward is to tackle racism with explicitly non-racist policies, not anti-racist ones.
Thats true, which is why most of the left has adopted intersectionality, which says an individual is the sum total of their experiences, rather than this or that identity
The statement is not untrue but it is selectively used here to imply that it only applies to one party. And that is wrong.
Don't they deny being racist, sexist or whatever more often than not when called out? It sure seems so.
I'm not even sure if you're talking about the racist left or the racist right and that is mildly amusing.
I don't know a lot (any?) racist right folks, but I know a shitload of racist left and they ALL publicly, verbally, in writing, rail against racism in one breath, and then shit on white people in the next.
I acknowledge that this is anecdotal, but still...
I don't know a lot (any?) racist right folks, but I know a shitload of racist left and they ALL publicly, verbally, in writing, rail against racism in one breath, and then shit on white people in the next.
I acknowledge that this is anecdotal, but still...
kristopolous(1)
hef19898(2)
Really? Where?
Usually I've seen forms like this
"I strongly believe in (basic description of X)"
"You know that's X, right?!"
"I'm not X"
"Alright, would you say you believe in (wikipedias first paragraph on X)?"
"Oh yes! You really understand!"
"You know I just lifted that from wikipedia article on X"
"Let me hear it again. Ok, that's not exactly right." Etc...
Try it yourself next time, it's pretty remarkable. They're not acting in bad faith or trying to deceive.
It's like an addict who believes they smoke cigarettes not because they have an addiction but because they enjoy the taste.
Most people want to believe they've made the right decisions (https://grist.org/article/80-percent-of-humans-are-delusiona...). They think racism is wrong so therefore their beliefs can't be racist.
Usually I've seen forms like this
"I strongly believe in (basic description of X)"
"You know that's X, right?!"
"I'm not X"
"Alright, would you say you believe in (wikipedias first paragraph on X)?"
"Oh yes! You really understand!"
"You know I just lifted that from wikipedia article on X"
"Let me hear it again. Ok, that's not exactly right." Etc...
Try it yourself next time, it's pretty remarkable. They're not acting in bad faith or trying to deceive.
It's like an addict who believes they smoke cigarettes not because they have an addiction but because they enjoy the taste.
Most people want to believe they've made the right decisions (https://grist.org/article/80-percent-of-humans-are-delusiona...). They think racism is wrong so therefore their beliefs can't be racist.
Exactly. Racists will generally justify themselves as "not racist" by giving claiming something to the tune of "I'm not prejudiced, I just agree with the numbers!", while appealing to some out-of-context statistic to try and act like those disagreeing with them are "denying science" by acknowledging that there's more nuance to the issue.
> The racists on the right know they're racists. They admit it.
Not necessarily.
Even Richard Spencer, proud Hitler-saluting Neo-Nazi, essentially the founder of the "alt-right", denies being racist.
People know that racism is bad, but a lot of racists will deny being racist while very explicitly saying they don't want to live next to a black person or will call the police just because they saw a black man walking through the neighborhood.
Not necessarily.
Even Richard Spencer, proud Hitler-saluting Neo-Nazi, essentially the founder of the "alt-right", denies being racist.
People know that racism is bad, but a lot of racists will deny being racist while very explicitly saying they don't want to live next to a black person or will call the police just because they saw a black man walking through the neighborhood.
That's not really true. He's definitely claimed to be some flavor of racist on that documentary on Netflix.
I don't remember where I saw it, and I'm struggling to find it now, but there was some interview where he explicitly claims to not be racist and claims to not hate black people, and even claims to not be a white supremacist, but that he merely believes that the races shouldn't mix and that America should be a white ethno-state.
He knows that racism is not socially acceptable, so he makes bad faith claims of not being racist while expressing obviously racist views. And the problem is, it works. It doesn't take much searching to find racists that don't think they're racist. The fact that people don't think Donald Trump is racist, despite a long list of racist remarks and actions [0], is proof of that.
And of course, later, Milo Yiannopoulos later released an audio recording of an explicitly racist rant. [1]
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Racial_views_of_Donald_Trump
[1] https://www.vox.com/identities/2019/11/4/20947833/richard-sp...
He knows that racism is not socially acceptable, so he makes bad faith claims of not being racist while expressing obviously racist views. And the problem is, it works. It doesn't take much searching to find racists that don't think they're racist. The fact that people don't think Donald Trump is racist, despite a long list of racist remarks and actions [0], is proof of that.
And of course, later, Milo Yiannopoulos later released an audio recording of an explicitly racist rant. [1]
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Racial_views_of_Donald_Trump
[1] https://www.vox.com/identities/2019/11/4/20947833/richard-sp...
So, making sure people can live their lives, without being discriminated and abused, is extremism? What you are saying is that people with more liberal and left leaning views should just forget about it and roll with the right, unless the right feels hurt.
It would help, if you would the issues the left should soften up on.
It would help, if you would the issues the left should soften up on.
Examples? I'm not really sure what you're aiming at here. I don't know of any documented cases where too much environmentalism or healthcare really hurt significant populations.
The right supports environmentalism and healthcare. They disagree with specific leftist plans.
The official right wing position towards the left is "your outcome would be lovely, but it isn't worth the excessive cost to getting there".
There isn't a sizeable lobby who is "against environmentalism", for example. There is a huge lobby who just doesn't see how a comfortable living standard can be achieved without fossil fuels.
The official right wing position towards the left is "your outcome would be lovely, but it isn't worth the excessive cost to getting there".
There isn't a sizeable lobby who is "against environmentalism", for example. There is a huge lobby who just doesn't see how a comfortable living standard can be achieved without fossil fuels.
> The right supports environmentalism and healthcare. They disagree with specific leftist plans.
Can you give me one right-leaning healthcare or environmental "plan" that anybody in congress is pushing that will cover every American 100% for healthcare, drugs, mental health, dental, etc?
Single-payer is the best plan I've seen because it negotiates rates for drugs in bulk - one price for all of America and the government can choose different companies if they won't play ball but it's a huge ass market so they'll play ball.
Likewise for the environment - the right tends to deny climate change is even happening, so how do they support environmentalism?
Why do the right also think it's okay to spend 700 billion per year on the military (that's more than the next ten countries combined, China for example only spends 200 billion), and the DOD is the only government agency never to pass a fiscal audit. If they're worried about "costs" then maybe they should start with the defense budget.
> There isn't a sizeable lobby who is "against environmentalism", for example. There is a huge lobby who just doesn't see how a comfortable living standard can be achieved without fossil fuels.
How comfortable a standard of living will we have when we have wars over water, and species of animals becoming extinct at ever faster rates (including the very species we eat and rely on for food)?
Can you give me one right-leaning healthcare or environmental "plan" that anybody in congress is pushing that will cover every American 100% for healthcare, drugs, mental health, dental, etc?
Single-payer is the best plan I've seen because it negotiates rates for drugs in bulk - one price for all of America and the government can choose different companies if they won't play ball but it's a huge ass market so they'll play ball.
Likewise for the environment - the right tends to deny climate change is even happening, so how do they support environmentalism?
Why do the right also think it's okay to spend 700 billion per year on the military (that's more than the next ten countries combined, China for example only spends 200 billion), and the DOD is the only government agency never to pass a fiscal audit. If they're worried about "costs" then maybe they should start with the defense budget.
> There isn't a sizeable lobby who is "against environmentalism", for example. There is a huge lobby who just doesn't see how a comfortable living standard can be achieved without fossil fuels.
How comfortable a standard of living will we have when we have wars over water, and species of animals becoming extinct at ever faster rates (including the very species we eat and rely on for food)?
There is no policy that is better for the environment than stopping deficit spending and balancing budgets - its just not branded as an environmental policy.
> Likewise for the environment - the right tends to deny climate change is even happening, so how do they support environmentalism?
That answers itself - if someone doesn't believe in a threat, it doesn't make sense to invest in stopping it.
> Can you give me one right-leaning healthcare or environmental "plan" that anybody in congress is pushing that will cover every American 100% for healthcare, drugs, mental health, dental, etc?
If there were exactly 2 choices, maybe there'd be a point there. But there is a spectrum of choices and no possible future where everyone has enough healthcare. None of the plans on the left or the right are pushing for the extreme scenario of 100% of the economy is devoted to healthcare.
The right wing would prefer the arbitrary standard trades off a little less against the economy, the left a little more. Both those positions are pro-healthcare, and both are arbitrary. You're welcome to your opinion on where the line should be drawn, but someone drawing the line differently isn't anti-healthcare.
> Why do the right also think it's okay to spend 700 billion per year on the military...
US's high military spending basically only goes up. If the left wanted to reign that in, they've had their chances and not taken them. It is a tragedy.
That answers itself - if someone doesn't believe in a threat, it doesn't make sense to invest in stopping it.
> Can you give me one right-leaning healthcare or environmental "plan" that anybody in congress is pushing that will cover every American 100% for healthcare, drugs, mental health, dental, etc?
If there were exactly 2 choices, maybe there'd be a point there. But there is a spectrum of choices and no possible future where everyone has enough healthcare. None of the plans on the left or the right are pushing for the extreme scenario of 100% of the economy is devoted to healthcare.
The right wing would prefer the arbitrary standard trades off a little less against the economy, the left a little more. Both those positions are pro-healthcare, and both are arbitrary. You're welcome to your opinion on where the line should be drawn, but someone drawing the line differently isn't anti-healthcare.
> Why do the right also think it's okay to spend 700 billion per year on the military...
US's high military spending basically only goes up. If the left wanted to reign that in, they've had their chances and not taken them. It is a tragedy.
> That answers itself - if someone doesn't believe in a threat, it doesn't make sense to invest in stopping it.
But you're the one claiming they're not anti-environmentalism! This is literally what anti-environmentalism is [1]. You might claim that they're not anti-environment though: I doubt anyone would actually choose to destroy the environment if it had no other effect. (Other than the small minority that's in it just to own-the-libs.)
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-environmentalism
But you're the one claiming they're not anti-environmentalism! This is literally what anti-environmentalism is [1]. You might claim that they're not anti-environment though: I doubt anyone would actually choose to destroy the environment if it had no other effect. (Other than the small minority that's in it just to own-the-libs.)
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-environmentalism
Fair enough, but if you want to argue that then I can go back to the point I joined the thread and provide examples of even small amounts of environmentalism causing hurt to specific populations.
All the resistance to the actual policies is people observing that they will have markedly lower quality of life and that the overall strategy of environmentalism is explicitly to dismantle big chunks of the west's way of life. That is why there is substantial organised resistance to the environmental policies the left wants, and why the resistance is more sustained. It is very damaging policy. That is why it is so unpopular. The people it is damaging aren't going to bear any consequences otherwise.
All the resistance to the actual policies is people observing that they will have markedly lower quality of life and that the overall strategy of environmentalism is explicitly to dismantle big chunks of the west's way of life. That is why there is substantial organised resistance to the environmental policies the left wants, and why the resistance is more sustained. It is very damaging policy. That is why it is so unpopular. The people it is damaging aren't going to bear any consequences otherwise.
Beyond being objectively untrue, this doesn't even come close to attempting to answer the question.
The direct answer is too complex to argue in a HN thread. "More healthcare" is a trade off. At some point real resources have to be taken from somewhere and put into healthcare. There is no limit to how many resources can be put into healthcare, so more healthcare means less of something else.
The premise of the question is that more=better, without acknowledging more=less of something else. The argument over what gets given up is exactly the political process, and that isn't going to be fun to rehash. People throw out "what if we trade off [thing I don't like]" and the whole argument becomes divorced from what will actually happen in the actual policy implementation.
The more productive response is to lay out the viewpoint, without delving in to the theoretical justifications. The view is pithy and might help a few people understand what the thinking is.
The premise of the question is that more=better, without acknowledging more=less of something else. The argument over what gets given up is exactly the political process, and that isn't going to be fun to rehash. People throw out "what if we trade off [thing I don't like]" and the whole argument becomes divorced from what will actually happen in the actual policy implementation.
The more productive response is to lay out the viewpoint, without delving in to the theoretical justifications. The view is pithy and might help a few people understand what the thinking is.
An answer to the question would be an example of a policy and an example of when said policy "really hurt and isolated a significant population"
It's pretty straightforward, everything else is frantic hand waving.
It's pretty straightforward, everything else is frantic hand waving.
[deleted]
> The official right wing position towards the left is "your outcome would be lovely, but it isn't worth the excessive cost to getting there".
Which makes even less sense, because the right since Regan have nearly continuously run up the deficit.
> The right supports environmentalism
You cannot simultaneously deny climate change and support the environment. They are mutually exclusive.
Which makes even less sense, because the right since Regan have nearly continuously run up the deficit.
> The right supports environmentalism
You cannot simultaneously deny climate change and support the environment. They are mutually exclusive.
> They are mutually exclusive.
They aren't. Eg, Germany has an energy policy shaped by an acceptance of global warming and their electricity grid is a hot mess compared to France that has better outcomes on pretty much every axis including emissions if you care about that. The French policy was shaped by military concerns about energy security.
And air/water/etc quality in the major US cities were off the charts good compared to the major Chinese cities, for a long period if not currently, and it has nothing to do with climate change.
Plus, the obvious way for the US to get knocked down to the #3 emissions producer from #2 is for India to industrialise, lifting the living standards of a billion people. I'd bet the actual environmental outcomes in India would improve if they burned fossil fuels like the US and China, then they'd tighten up environmental standards like the west has. In that instance that is a direct conflict between believing in climate change and actual observed environmental outcomes. There isn't really a question in hindsight that India should have done the same things as China in the 80s/90s and built up their coal fired power plants. That would have left them in a better position to tackle environmental issues today.
They aren't. Eg, Germany has an energy policy shaped by an acceptance of global warming and their electricity grid is a hot mess compared to France that has better outcomes on pretty much every axis including emissions if you care about that. The French policy was shaped by military concerns about energy security.
And air/water/etc quality in the major US cities were off the charts good compared to the major Chinese cities, for a long period if not currently, and it has nothing to do with climate change.
Plus, the obvious way for the US to get knocked down to the #3 emissions producer from #2 is for India to industrialise, lifting the living standards of a billion people. I'd bet the actual environmental outcomes in India would improve if they burned fossil fuels like the US and China, then they'd tighten up environmental standards like the west has. In that instance that is a direct conflict between believing in climate change and actual observed environmental outcomes. There isn't really a question in hindsight that India should have done the same things as China in the 80s/90s and built up their coal fired power plants. That would have left them in a better position to tackle environmental issues today.
I (very much) appreciate the thoughtful response, but I have to push back because I don't think you appreciate what climate change trajectory means. At the current rate, much of the planet may become unlivable _within our lives_. While the other kinds of environmental impacts matter, they don't matter as much as (the degree to which) the climate will be impacted. Its a bit like caring about the quality of your car's interior comfort features as you head 80mph into a brick wall.
> Eg, Germany has an energy policy shaped by an acceptance of global warming and their electricity grid is a hot mess compared
They don't, because they don't build nuclear power plants. Simply put, if you don't build nuclear power plants, you don't (fully) understand climate change. Unless you have a plan for your country to use dramatically less energy (which I don't believe is tenable), its the only feasible option in the time frames we need as far as I know.
> I'd bet the actual environmental outcomes in India would improve if they burned fossil fuels like the US and China, then they'd tighten up environmental standards like the west has.
I believe there is not enough time for that process to happen.
> Eg, Germany has an energy policy shaped by an acceptance of global warming and their electricity grid is a hot mess compared
They don't, because they don't build nuclear power plants. Simply put, if you don't build nuclear power plants, you don't (fully) understand climate change. Unless you have a plan for your country to use dramatically less energy (which I don't believe is tenable), its the only feasible option in the time frames we need as far as I know.
> I'd bet the actual environmental outcomes in India would improve if they burned fossil fuels like the US and China, then they'd tighten up environmental standards like the west has.
I believe there is not enough time for that process to happen.
Yes im sure the insurance companies and fossil fuel companies who have spent millions of think tanks and studies and election were just concerned about living standards.
any examples?
No. Deplatforming actually works really really well. The irony of this being on HN where shadowbanning is de rigeur.
There was an old adage saying that you should not do upon other what you wouldn't want to be done to you. Remember that being gay was in the crosshairs ? By bullying perceived right-wing ideas, you only expose yourself to a pendulum swing.
Never forgive, never forget.
ps: I have been harassed, bullied, I will not surrender my guns to the [old] new bullies, NEVER.
Never forgive, never forget.
ps: I have been harassed, bullied, I will not surrender my guns to the [old] new bullies, NEVER.
[deleted]
One side of extremism want to kill people the other doesn’t this is pretty simple
Please don't post unsubstantive flamewar comments to HN. They make even a wretched flamewar like this entire thread go into a deeper circle of hell.
We detached this subthread from https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26432675.
We detached this subthread from https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26432675.
No using Nazis as the example made it that simple. Nazis want to kill people....
Please stop.
Unironically, which one is that then? Because as far as I can tell, both are armed and battering each other.
> right-wing extremists have killed 329 victims in the last 25 years, while antifa members haven't killed any
https://www.businessinsider.com/right-wing-extremists-kill-3...
https://www.businessinsider.com/right-wing-extremists-kill-3...
> while antifa members haven't killed any
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Killings_of_Aaron_Danielson_an...
Yesterday:
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/imez-wrigh...
Edit:
This just in! https://twitter.com/MrAndyNgo/status/1370281113239891969
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hEWsJ8SvlMY
Antifa are clearly one of the most violent organisations active today. Borderline terrorists (= "action or threat designed to influence the government or intimidate the public").
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Killings_of_Aaron_Danielson_an...
Yesterday:
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/imez-wrigh...
Edit:
This just in! https://twitter.com/MrAndyNgo/status/1370281113239891969
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hEWsJ8SvlMY
Antifa are clearly one of the most violent organisations active today. Borderline terrorists (= "action or threat designed to influence the government or intimidate the public").
In that first Wikipedia link, it mentions that Danielson's killing is the first time an anti-fascist has been charged wit homicide in 26 years. Not exactly a ringing endorsement for the "crown of most violent organization active today."
Careful, we might begin to suspect that you did not ask your question unironically or in good faith.
No, I think there's clearly a large cohort of angry and armed Trumpers also looking for a fight. Just visit Facebook. But the ratio of 300:0 for right:left violence is clearly wrong.
Youre right, the article is old, antifa has killed a single person, its only 300 times more murders from the right than antifa now. of course also ignoring that antifa medics were attempting to provide medical aid to danielson when the right pushed them away
As for those other 2, the first has nothing to do with antifa, the second is a trash fire where no one was hurt
I also like how your response to statistics is individual stories
As for those other 2, the first has nothing to do with antifa, the second is a trash fire where no one was hurt
I also like how your response to statistics is individual stories
[deleted]
Might be useful to think of Extremist views and conspiracy theories as Mind Viruses. Currently we have no way to fight the disease or inoculate people against them other than preventing the ideas getting into their heads in the first place.
You can't dialog with fascist.
Please do not post unsubstantive and/or flamebait comments to HN. This thread is terrible enough without being pushed deeper into hell like this.
We detached this subthread from https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26432620.
We detached this subthread from https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26432620.
If you want a definite proof you're wrong, read this: https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/kkk-klu-kl...
This is the story of Daryl Davis, a black man who convinced 200 KKK members (yes, real violent racists, not just people who disagreed with you on tax rates) to change their ways. If a black man can do it by talking to KKK members, maybe it's after all possible for you to dialogue with your neighbor about tax rates?
This is the story of Daryl Davis, a black man who convinced 200 KKK members (yes, real violent racists, not just people who disagreed with you on tax rates) to change their ways. If a black man can do it by talking to KKK members, maybe it's after all possible for you to dialogue with your neighbor about tax rates?
1) What metric do you use to define fascists?
2) How do you determine that a specific person you're dealing with can be specifically categorized into that bucket?
3) Are you calling them that name because it accurately defines that person's identity and behavior or is it because this tag is a really easy tag to slap onto people so you can deal with them very easily without having to think too much..
Like if I call someone a simp, beyond me insulting him and conveying I don't like him, it doesn't really mean anything..
not like he's going to become one (whatever that would mean) because I called him that..
2) How do you determine that a specific person you're dealing with can be specifically categorized into that bucket?
3) Are you calling them that name because it accurately defines that person's identity and behavior or is it because this tag is a really easy tag to slap onto people so you can deal with them very easily without having to think too much..
Like if I call someone a simp, beyond me insulting him and conveying I don't like him, it doesn't really mean anything..
not like he's going to become one (whatever that would mean) because I called him that..
The vast, vast majority of people who disagree with the left are not fascists.
The urge to label them fascists and make them seem monstrous and unworthy of engagement is the impulse leads to civil war.
The urge to label them fascists and make them seem monstrous and unworthy of engagement is the impulse leads to civil war.
I agree, but I would suggest you use the same logic about labelling anyone in any part of the political spectrum then. Using terms such as "the left" might seem less antagonistic than calling someone a "fascist" yet come across just as harshly when read / heard by someone who hears "the left" preached in the 2 minutes hate of their preferred news source.
Yeah but nobody here said "you can't talk with leftists, they're all extremists and closed-minded."
edit: At least nobody I've seen yet. People are probably gonna say it (this goes for any "it" as conversation length grows), but I'd expect it to be downvoted.
edit: At least nobody I've seen yet. People are probably gonna say it (this goes for any "it" as conversation length grows), but I'd expect it to be downvoted.
Indeed the assertion can be construed as part of the label itself. What I'm saying is that just because a person uses a label without additional assertions, there are many blanks filled in by the reader / listener based on their own daily inputs.
So regardless of the HN crowd's restraint when using labels, the labels themselves can carry unintended implications.
So regardless of the HN crowd's restraint when using labels, the labels themselves can carry unintended implications.
People have been real happy to say "extreme left and extreme right" and yet mysteriously seem to have no idea who the extreme left actually is.
Fascist is not just "extreme right" it's a specific political ideology or goal. The extreme left is therefore ???
Because while the US certainly has a small following of communists like how every country has a small following of everything, they're certainly not the group which attempted to seize the Capitol building on January 6.
Fascist is not just "extreme right" it's a specific political ideology or goal. The extreme left is therefore ???
Because while the US certainly has a small following of communists like how every country has a small following of everything, they're certainly not the group which attempted to seize the Capitol building on January 6.
[deleted]
There are usually two steps here:
1. Declare people who disagree with you fascists 2. Declare that it's impossible to dialogue with fascists
Then it all becomes very easy.
1. Declare people who disagree with you fascists 2. Declare that it's impossible to dialogue with fascists
Then it all becomes very easy.
k4c9x(2)
We should unironically taboo the words fascist (unless referring to 30's Italy), nazi (unless referring to third reich), communist (unless they propose a People's Republic) and socialist (not really referring to anything, but the word has become an ad hom at this point) to have any kind of healthy political debate. It is cowardly to hide behind those words and not say what you actually mean
Nevermind that Daryl Davis has literally converted over 200 KKK members: https://www.rt.com/viral/371340-meet-black-man-kkk/
THAT is how you beat fascism. Not censorship.
Lazy programmers trying censor via bits and bytes are never going to accomplish in a million years what Mr. Davis already has.
THAT is how you beat fascism. Not censorship.
Lazy programmers trying censor via bits and bytes are never going to accomplish in a million years what Mr. Davis already has.
And Jack Churchill captured Nazi outposts with a longbow and a broadsword, but if allies armed every soldier with longbows and broadswords, something tells me that we'd be under Nazi occupation to this day.
Some great things are done by great people, but they don't necessarily scale well.
Some great things are done by great people, but they don't necessarily scale well.
This misses the point (that the author of OPs post nailed). It doesn't matter that it doesn't scale. It works, and censorship doesn't.
Do you want a (difficult) method that works (personal involvement and direct conversation), or a simple, easy, lazy one (deplatforming/cancel/censorship) that doesn't?
Do you want a (difficult) method that works (personal involvement and direct conversation), or a simple, easy, lazy one (deplatforming/cancel/censorship) that doesn't?
Censorship comes with its own problems, but if your position is that it flat out doesn't work, you'd need a more convincing argument.
Nazi censored. Stalin censored. Xi censors. Seems hard to explain if censorship doesn't work.
Nazi censored. Stalin censored. Xi censors. Seems hard to explain if censorship doesn't work.
>Nazi censored. Stalin censored. Xi censors. Seems hard to explain if censorship doesn't work.
Nazis also killed the speakers. Stalin killed the speakers. Xi kills the speakers.
Citing mass genociders as "censorship works" is hilariously bad evidence of censorship working when terminating the speaker most definitely works.
Nazis also killed the speakers. Stalin killed the speakers. Xi kills the speakers.
Citing mass genociders as "censorship works" is hilariously bad evidence of censorship working when terminating the speaker most definitely works.
Sure it worked. Using a nuclear warhead works to solve your ant infestation, too.
We want something that works and that doesn't have the nasty side-effects. Nazi, Stalin, and Xi's tactics aren't the answer we're looking for.
We want something that works and that doesn't have the nasty side-effects. Nazi, Stalin, and Xi's tactics aren't the answer we're looking for.
200 people isn't very much. Twitter has 192 million users. Assuming (extremely generously given that twitter is on the Internet and has a userbase that skews younger) that twitter matches America's partisan divide, it probably has around 90 million users.
It seems unlikely that at least a thousand people out of 90 million aren't gullible enough to be swayed by hellbanning.
It seems unlikely that at least a thousand people out of 90 million aren't gullible enough to be swayed by hellbanning.
Show me proof that twitter censorship has converted even ONE racist/nazi and I'll entertain this notion.
"it seeming unlikely" hardly compares to a man with 200 trophies to prove his method works.
"it seeming unlikely" hardly compares to a man with 200 trophies to prove his method works.
Hellbanning has a history of working well for deradicalization of online communities that were a lot worse than twitter is; Jeff Atwood has a good post giving a brief look at the history of it: https://blog.codinghorror.com/suspension-ban-or-hellban/
That's not proof that any one actual person was deradicalized, which was the metric.
Mr. Davis has 200 examples. I'm only asking for one. His method works. The deplatformers' citation of their own platforms only proves that they control their own platforms, not that any extremist view was changed.
Mr. Davis has 200 examples. I'm only asking for one. His method works. The deplatformers' citation of their own platforms only proves that they control their own platforms, not that any extremist view was changed.
That does show that people were deradicalized; read the Metafilter thread linked.
That's exactly something a fascist will say about someone who he disagrees with but it's incapable of debating.
A clear case of projection and most likely also a straw man.
How else are you supposed to respond to a comment like this?
How else are you supposed to respond to a comment like this?
I partly agree with you. You cannot convince a person with an extreme view (see flat earthers for example).
But I do believe you need to give reasonable responses to extreme views, to prevent others from becoming extreme. Calling someone "fascist" is in that sense never constructive.
Reasonable views are hard to argue with.
But I do believe you need to give reasonable responses to extreme views, to prevent others from becoming extreme. Calling someone "fascist" is in that sense never constructive.
Reasonable views are hard to argue with.
Jean-Paul Sartre, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jean-Paul_Sartre
“Never believe that anti-Semites are completely unaware of the absurdity of their replies. They know that their remarks are frivolous, open to challenge. But they are amusing themselves, for it is their adversary who is obliged to use words responsibly, since he believes in words. The anti-Semites have the right to play. They even like to play with discourse for, by giving ridiculous reasons, they discredit the seriousness of their interlocutors. They delight in acting in bad faith, since they seek not to persuade by sound argument but to intimidate and disconcert. If you press them too closely, they will abruptly fall silent, loftily indicating by some phrase that the time for argument is past.”
“Never believe that anti-Semites are completely unaware of the absurdity of their replies. They know that their remarks are frivolous, open to challenge. But they are amusing themselves, for it is their adversary who is obliged to use words responsibly, since he believes in words. The anti-Semites have the right to play. They even like to play with discourse for, by giving ridiculous reasons, they discredit the seriousness of their interlocutors. They delight in acting in bad faith, since they seek not to persuade by sound argument but to intimidate and disconcert. If you press them too closely, they will abruptly fall silent, loftily indicating by some phrase that the time for argument is past.”
step 1: declare people you dont like fascists
step 2: declare that you cant debate fascism
step 3: ...
step 4: censorship and violent supression time
step 2: declare that you cant debate fascism
step 3: ...
step 4: censorship and violent supression time
It's an irony that the kind of free speech you appear to support (and please correct me if I'm wrong) existed in fascist states like Nazi Germany and fascist Italy, because, as Chomsky points out here[1] "Goebbels was in favour of freedom of speech for views he liked".
I'd suggest you might try the other path, as Chomsky also suggests:
> “If you're in favour of freedom of speech that means you're in favour of freedom of speech precisely for views you despise. Otherwise you're not in favour of freedom of speech.
> There's two positions you can have on freedom of speech, and you can decide which position you want.”
[1] https://youtu.be/4-oV42OMQoE?t=408
I'd suggest you might try the other path, as Chomsky also suggests:
> “If you're in favour of freedom of speech that means you're in favour of freedom of speech precisely for views you despise. Otherwise you're not in favour of freedom of speech.
> There's two positions you can have on freedom of speech, and you can decide which position you want.”
[1] https://youtu.be/4-oV42OMQoE?t=408
Maybe that’s true. But you can program and neutralize would-be fascists with upvotes and downvotes. Like seriously literally.
Science. Science is an excellent framework. This is where what you call “fascists” try to lead you all the time. We revert to science because leftist don’t recognize our lived experiences don’t seem to matter to you (e.g. a daughter raped by people who should have been already in prison, was liberated out of ideology, and said he had no good intention in our country), so we come back to statistics to try to sort the emotions out of rational thinking. It is as if leftists didn’t recognize our emotion towards the rape victim, so we come back to factual things.
Science is an excellent framework, leftists are very good at it when it’s about criticizing the opponent, and we are very good at it when we want to criticize the PC of the moment. Now we need to converge.
Please don’t despair. Please don’t give up discussing and trying to sort out truth from pollution.
Science is an excellent framework, leftists are very good at it when it’s about criticizing the opponent, and we are very good at it when we want to criticize the PC of the moment. Now we need to converge.
Please don’t despair. Please don’t give up discussing and trying to sort out truth from pollution.
Railing against the word "fascist" by attacking "leftists" is not a very effective approach, especially if you truly seek unity. (which HN guidelines force me to have to assume here)
Yes, apparently not.
You can dialog with fascists, monarchists, communists, anarcho-sydicalists, theocrats, trans-human techno utopianists, and those who welcome our insect overlords.
You can't tweet at them though.
You can't tweet at them though.
Marxists can't open dialog.
Jean-Paul Sartre has a good quote on this - he framed it around anti-semitism but it covers othes as well, it might as well been written about QAnon or COVID deniers:
Never believe that anti-Semites are completely unaware of the absurdity of their replies. They know that their remarks are frivolous, open to challenge. But they are amusing themselves, for it is their adversary who is obliged to use words responsibly, since he believes in words. The anti-Semites have the right to play. They even like to play with discourse for, by giving ridiculous reasons, they discredit the seriousness of their interlocutors. They delight in acting in bad faith, since they seek not to persuade by sound argument but to intimidate and disconcert. If you press them too closely, they will abruptly fall silent, loftily indicating by some phrase that the time for argument is past.
Never believe that anti-Semites are completely unaware of the absurdity of their replies. They know that their remarks are frivolous, open to challenge. But they are amusing themselves, for it is their adversary who is obliged to use words responsibly, since he believes in words. The anti-Semites have the right to play. They even like to play with discourse for, by giving ridiculous reasons, they discredit the seriousness of their interlocutors. They delight in acting in bad faith, since they seek not to persuade by sound argument but to intimidate and disconcert. If you press them too closely, they will abruptly fall silent, loftily indicating by some phrase that the time for argument is past.
Today they complain about being cancelled before going silent.
Very good quote.
Very good quote.
>Today they complain about others who were silenced before they themselves are silenced.
FTFY!
Which ironically runs right into the famous poem:
>First they came for the Communists >And I did not speak out >Because I was not a Communist
>Then they came for the Socialists >And I did not speak out >Because I was not a Socialist
>Then they came for the trade unionists >And I did not speak out >Because I was not a trade unionist
>Then they came for the Jews >And I did not speak out >Because I was not a Jew
>Then they came for me >And there was no one left >To speak out for me
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_they_came_...
FTFY!
Which ironically runs right into the famous poem:
>First they came for the Communists >And I did not speak out >Because I was not a Communist
>Then they came for the Socialists >And I did not speak out >Because I was not a Socialist
>Then they came for the trade unionists >And I did not speak out >Because I was not a trade unionist
>Then they came for the Jews >And I did not speak out >Because I was not a Jew
>Then they came for me >And there was no one left >To speak out for me
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_they_came_...
I am not sure what you opinion is. The poem you quoted is aimed at true, real, historically existing Nazis. So it is less applicable at people with somewhat similar views complaining about being called out. Calling them out and confronting them is exactly what the poem advocates for.
The same goes for your post about tolerance towards intolerance. And then you complain about anti-white racism, which is not a thing.
Care to elaborate?
The same goes for your post about tolerance towards intolerance. And then you complain about anti-white racism, which is not a thing.
Care to elaborate?
The right are not the ones cancelling people. It's better to have everyone fighting like hell than one side censored into oblivion.
> The right are not the ones cancelling people
The right is the one failling at cancelling people, but they try just as much as the left
The right is the one failling at cancelling people, but they try just as much as the left
Tell that to the "RINOs". :-P
They are the ones storming the Capitol, though.
If you encounter a fascist in the morning, you encountered a fascist. If you run into fascists all day long, you’re probably the fascist.
I mean, it is said that you are the average of the five people you know best, so this is probably correct.
pii(2)
Gate speech laws are kinda like vaccines. They don’t stop it but they sure do keep it from spreading to everyone. End of the day A Nazi doesn’t have anything to say and doesn’t deserve the protections to be able to say it. They fact that we can decent this is what makes us humans or else it’s just computers applying filters
Not directed at this comment, one of the minority like it. But These hacker news posts where the majority of comments treat private companies like Twitter and Facebook censoring neonazi propaganda as if they are censoring unions or advocates of universal health care make me really dismayed at hacker news. It’s like they say there are really no way humans are capable of distinguishing between literal white nationalist extremist views and people advocating for universal health care. It really makes me question the user base of hacker news
Everyone seems to be attacking the arguments from the same angle and I feel it is wrong:
There are a few arguments going on:
- Is the left and the right really the same 2 extremes?
- Should we enable radicals on the platforms because free speech?
- Should we treat everyone with respect?
The problem is that what we really have is a few crowds:
(1) "They took our guns" people. Single issue, at the expense of all others. This unfortunately includes "the climate crisis is a hoax" and "COVID is a hoax" and "Vaccines are evil" crowd.
(2) Ensure human rights to all people of the country crowd. This is more of a social argument that conflicts highly with people who scapegoat. This is effectively the anti-scapegoat crowd, usually considered the "left".
(3) Social equality crowd (usually is a subset of (2)). This is all about people who are looking at patterns in society that elevate one group at the expense of another. This isn't rich vs poor, but rather for example looking at how school funding is set up to make sure certain community have terrible school and thus a perpetuating cycle of crime and poverty.
The problem is that the (1) crowd is being used to elect politicians who basically give no shit about society, and only focus on making the rich richer at the expense of everything else. I mean fucking pandemic and corporate bailouts, while most businesses collapse. These politicians vote directly against the (1) crowd, and everyone else, but push division.
We're no longer actually debating economic policies. We're debating racism and voting based on that. I am not happy with the democratic party in the US. They are pretty terrible. But the other side is literal Nazis.
The problem with "embracing" and fixing the (1) crowd is that a large number of people opposing (1) are directly harmed by (1). Very hard to forgive when the causes of the deaths of your family are asking for hugs caz "sorry I realized I am wrong". Many are not willing to do that. How do you ask someone to give up their trauma and find it in their hearts to forgive the other side? It can happen, but it is not "simple".
There are a few arguments going on:
- Is the left and the right really the same 2 extremes?
- Should we enable radicals on the platforms because free speech?
- Should we treat everyone with respect?
The problem is that what we really have is a few crowds:
(1) "They took our guns" people. Single issue, at the expense of all others. This unfortunately includes "the climate crisis is a hoax" and "COVID is a hoax" and "Vaccines are evil" crowd.
(2) Ensure human rights to all people of the country crowd. This is more of a social argument that conflicts highly with people who scapegoat. This is effectively the anti-scapegoat crowd, usually considered the "left".
(3) Social equality crowd (usually is a subset of (2)). This is all about people who are looking at patterns in society that elevate one group at the expense of another. This isn't rich vs poor, but rather for example looking at how school funding is set up to make sure certain community have terrible school and thus a perpetuating cycle of crime and poverty.
The problem is that the (1) crowd is being used to elect politicians who basically give no shit about society, and only focus on making the rich richer at the expense of everything else. I mean fucking pandemic and corporate bailouts, while most businesses collapse. These politicians vote directly against the (1) crowd, and everyone else, but push division.
We're no longer actually debating economic policies. We're debating racism and voting based on that. I am not happy with the democratic party in the US. They are pretty terrible. But the other side is literal Nazis.
The problem with "embracing" and fixing the (1) crowd is that a large number of people opposing (1) are directly harmed by (1). Very hard to forgive when the causes of the deaths of your family are asking for hugs caz "sorry I realized I am wrong". Many are not willing to do that. How do you ask someone to give up their trauma and find it in their hearts to forgive the other side? It can happen, but it is not "simple".
Do you live in the US? The way you phrased that makes me wonder and the Republicans are not anywhere near unified enough (or draconian enough) to be Nazis. As a reminder, the Nazis interred people based on race and exterminated them. The Republicans are just jerks.
I predict this comment section will be full of normative statements.
I never understood the point of Strafgesetzbuch section 86a. It does not make any sense to outlaw using Nazi symbols. It's like outlawing symptoms instead of caring for the illness. People will just take it underground and you will have a harder time tracking it down.
Being underground makes it hard for those wishing to spread it to spread it.
Maybe I shouldn't have mixed up two different aspects of this question. "Taking it underground" relates more to the expression of ideas as the discussed in the article. I don't see much of this in the use of the classical Nazi symbols.
On the other hand the law has been used to a ridiculuous extent in banning Nazi symbols from all sorts of cultural artifacts such as games or movies. Doesn't make any sense to me.
On the other hand the law has been used to a ridiculuous extent in banning Nazi symbols from all sorts of cultural artifacts such as games or movies. Doesn't make any sense to me.
Its purpose was somewhat historic in that it kills any attempt to invoke their symbolism or terrible power for "legitimacy".
While nearly everyone rightfully recognizes it as terrible some see that as fear and a source of power. Fascism is a death cult which conflates its ability to commit travesties with strength and vicarious empowerment to its supporters to make crimes against humanity heroic. Stopping the death cults from drawing upon resources for their twisted in-group is a purpose.
The constitution embedded ban means any resurrectionists can be hammered down without any credible slippery slope worries.
It is true that a new set could emerge eventually. However having to neuter their own symbols undermines their twisted claim to strength and makes them look pathetic in the same way the battle of Cable Street undermined their claims of strength - even with their warped doublethink trying to be both mighty victor against overwhelming odds and crying victim after they lost is too much.
Gangs get impressionable recruits by dealing violence to demonstrate power not being seen getting laid out after they try to attack somebody and get decked in the face.
While nearly everyone rightfully recognizes it as terrible some see that as fear and a source of power. Fascism is a death cult which conflates its ability to commit travesties with strength and vicarious empowerment to its supporters to make crimes against humanity heroic. Stopping the death cults from drawing upon resources for their twisted in-group is a purpose.
The constitution embedded ban means any resurrectionists can be hammered down without any credible slippery slope worries.
It is true that a new set could emerge eventually. However having to neuter their own symbols undermines their twisted claim to strength and makes them look pathetic in the same way the battle of Cable Street undermined their claims of strength - even with their warped doublethink trying to be both mighty victor against overwhelming odds and crying victim after they lost is too much.
Gangs get impressionable recruits by dealing violence to demonstrate power not being seen getting laid out after they try to attack somebody and get decked in the face.
I know the article spends its time describing how anti hate speech laws in Western Europe are not working. But frankly they’re not enforced. I think this is why they don’t work.
I see censorship has putting dirt under the carpet. People will try again. There’s no accountability. Social media censorship would ban flashing boobs with the same enthusiasm as Nazi propaganda. The latter is not a breach of terms and condition, it’s literally illegal over here, in the same way punching someone in the street would be.
Why not put these people in court? I understand it won’t entirely eliminate right wing ideology, but at least it sends a clear message that racist, homophobic, and threat to use violence are illegal.
If you look at right wing parties in France and Germany, their speech is a lot more nuanced. They can’t go about and say things like “all Mexicans are rapists” (a Trump quote) because it would lend them in jail or worse to be stripped of the right to run for elections. So it works!
The only problem is that it is not enforced for anyone else. People can go about and write things like that on social media and face no consequences whatsoever. At worst, their accounts will be disabled.
Edit. Typos
I see censorship has putting dirt under the carpet. People will try again. There’s no accountability. Social media censorship would ban flashing boobs with the same enthusiasm as Nazi propaganda. The latter is not a breach of terms and condition, it’s literally illegal over here, in the same way punching someone in the street would be.
Why not put these people in court? I understand it won’t entirely eliminate right wing ideology, but at least it sends a clear message that racist, homophobic, and threat to use violence are illegal.
If you look at right wing parties in France and Germany, their speech is a lot more nuanced. They can’t go about and say things like “all Mexicans are rapists” (a Trump quote) because it would lend them in jail or worse to be stripped of the right to run for elections. So it works!
The only problem is that it is not enforced for anyone else. People can go about and write things like that on social media and face no consequences whatsoever. At worst, their accounts will be disabled.
Edit. Typos
>“all Mexicans are rapists” (a Trump quote)
Except he didn't actually say that. It's actually Tim Kaine misquoting Trump, so technically it's a Kaine quote.
https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2016/aug/08/tim-kaine/...
By enforcement, I assume you mean arrest and jail people for speech. It will probably work for a while, as it does it more dictatorial countries. At least until the cities start burning down.
Except he didn't actually say that. It's actually Tim Kaine misquoting Trump, so technically it's a Kaine quote.
https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2016/aug/08/tim-kaine/...
By enforcement, I assume you mean arrest and jail people for speech. It will probably work for a while, as it does it more dictatorial countries. At least until the cities start burning down.
>They can’t go about and say things like “all Mexicans are rapists” (a Trump quote) because it would lend them in jail
First of all. I intensely dislike Donald Trump and I'm glad he's gone. I hope its for good. That being said that's not a quote from him. Its an unnecessary and dishonest embellishment of what he actually said. Unnecessary because what he said is bad enough to make the same point.
Finally, if a person simply said the exact quote you listed, and the result is that they were imprisoned, the most offensive thing in this story would be the government that thinks someone saying something nasty and untrue alone is enough to warrant time in jail.
First of all. I intensely dislike Donald Trump and I'm glad he's gone. I hope its for good. That being said that's not a quote from him. Its an unnecessary and dishonest embellishment of what he actually said. Unnecessary because what he said is bad enough to make the same point.
Finally, if a person simply said the exact quote you listed, and the result is that they were imprisoned, the most offensive thing in this story would be the government that thinks someone saying something nasty and untrue alone is enough to warrant time in jail.
> a Trump quote
Not so much. You weaken your argument with such blatant falsehoods.
Not so much. You weaken your argument with such blatant falsehoods.
It's fascinating when someone who is in a position of power and never suffers from hate speech develops his mind. People who suffer from hate speech know and understand cristal clear what they want to ban from our society. But others, which are not feeling it at the skin level, are just "hate," a natural part of the human being.
Please do not automatically jump to assumptions that people who you disagree with are in position of power or never encounter hate. This kind of sweeping generalization is what fuels racism, sexism and other kinds of "identitarianism", it stifles thought and prevents nuanced discussion.
Somehow I doubt that opinions about people who hold racist beliefs is what fuels those people, and not, well, racism.
Look, we need to factor in that humans are social creatures. And that our ideas secure themselves through the help of validity from others. Hate speech that occurred on Reddit in a community was validated and encouraged that eventually lead to a man carrying out a terrorist attack in Toronto.
https://www.vice.com/en/article/bjwdk3/man-accused-of-toront...
I think this article is pretty light on alternate solutions. It proposes rationally and intellectually trying to make the other side see why you are right and they are wrong, and makes a kind of snarky claim that somehow that CAN more easily be done, where I'm only seeing a normative idea here, it should be done, but can it?
I'm not so sure it can personally.
I think it forgets that most people are just whatever their surrounding makes them. That's why "trends" are so powerful influencers. That's why you have clear pockets, areas where the people in the same geographic areas all vote mostly similar and share similar values and ideas.
The people who think their way unbiased through value, moral and ideas are rare.
What we're left with in my opinion as viable solutions are two approaches:
1. Censorship 2. Propaganda
Of the two, I think Propaganda is the best. I think we've seen that on both side now, left or right, it's the "trending" messages, tweets, memes, and all that which work best to convince and influence others. Propaganda creates culture, and culture defines peoples viewpoint.
The issue today is all about Propaganda and the powers behind them. What is being most promoted? Retweeted? Recommended?
When you have legitimate bots and troll farms participating in these efforts, and when you have extremists on all sides actively pushing messaging online, it creates new "trends" and it slowly plants seeds in people's head one way or another.
Whichever side I'd be on, I'd focus my effort there to win. Publish messaging, memes, photos, clips, headlines that discredit the other side at every turn, adds haze and confusion, throws shades. And fill every channel with an abundance of your own messaging, values, ideas, alongside catchy positives.
Now do this well, and it also results in censoring the other as a side effect. If you're the thing trending and being recommended, it means the other messages won't reach as many people. If you flood things, the other messages are less likely to be seen.
I'm not so sure it can personally.
I think it forgets that most people are just whatever their surrounding makes them. That's why "trends" are so powerful influencers. That's why you have clear pockets, areas where the people in the same geographic areas all vote mostly similar and share similar values and ideas.
The people who think their way unbiased through value, moral and ideas are rare.
What we're left with in my opinion as viable solutions are two approaches:
1. Censorship 2. Propaganda
Of the two, I think Propaganda is the best. I think we've seen that on both side now, left or right, it's the "trending" messages, tweets, memes, and all that which work best to convince and influence others. Propaganda creates culture, and culture defines peoples viewpoint.
The issue today is all about Propaganda and the powers behind them. What is being most promoted? Retweeted? Recommended?
When you have legitimate bots and troll farms participating in these efforts, and when you have extremists on all sides actively pushing messaging online, it creates new "trends" and it slowly plants seeds in people's head one way or another.
Whichever side I'd be on, I'd focus my effort there to win. Publish messaging, memes, photos, clips, headlines that discredit the other side at every turn, adds haze and confusion, throws shades. And fill every channel with an abundance of your own messaging, values, ideas, alongside catchy positives.
Now do this well, and it also results in censoring the other as a side effect. If you're the thing trending and being recommended, it means the other messages won't reach as many people. If you flood things, the other messages are less likely to be seen.
I'm surprised to see people agreeing with this hypothesis ... while commenting on HN. I'm a huge fan of the site rules (https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html) and the way they are applied by the moderation team. But that said, HN has the most heavy handed censorship of any site I frequent. Read all the rules from start to finish and ask yourself if you'd be ok following these rules in every Internet forum.
"Strong moderation" and "heavy censorship" are the same thing, just dependent on whether you agree with the moderation or not. If you disagree, please show me a site without moderation that still has high quality discussion.
"Strong moderation" and "heavy censorship" are the same thing, just dependent on whether you agree with the moderation or not. If you disagree, please show me a site without moderation that still has high quality discussion.
HN doesn't have very strong moderation. The things people got kicked off twitter and Facebook for saying would be allowed here, at least if they were on topic and phrased politely.
> HN doesn't have very strong moderation
FWIW, I agree. But the people who are shadow banned for trivial offences would probably be writing replies to your comment about this ... if they knew they were shadow banned that is. And we wouldn't be able to read it either way, so it's a moot point. Just one data point, but one of my friends has been shadow banned from HN for years and he never even knew that he was. Say what you will about twitter and Facebook, but at least they're up front about bans.
FWIW, I agree. But the people who are shadow banned for trivial offences would probably be writing replies to your comment about this ... if they knew they were shadow banned that is. And we wouldn't be able to read it either way, so it's a moot point. Just one data point, but one of my friends has been shadow banned from HN for years and he never even knew that he was. Say what you will about twitter and Facebook, but at least they're up front about bans.
The lack of transparency is really unfortunate. It makes this whole thread sorta ironic: there's a lot of hate in this thread (deserved or not) directed at larger social media sites, but at least those ones aren't both removing peoples' content and deliberately wasting their time by pretending to accept their posts.
I like well-moderated sites like Hacker News, but this isn’t going to do anything to prevent extremists from communicating using other forums.
What are you going to do, shut down all group chats that doesn’t conform to your standards? It’s a much harder problem than creating a site that has good moderation.
What are you going to do, shut down all group chats that doesn’t conform to your standards? It’s a much harder problem than creating a site that has good moderation.
The goal isn't to drive extremism to extinction, it's to make it niche so the mainstream doesn't get infected with it.
I genuinely don't understand how a forum of people who would almost certainly self-identify as internet-natives don't understand the concept of mainstreaming. We invented all this language do talk about and describe how ideas work and spread in the information age but decided to just pretend it doesn't exist anymore. When did programmers become so... binary?
Like it's so frustrating to talk about issues like this on HN because huge swaths of the US part of crowd see themselves as very distant from the "gods & guns" crowd but then fall into the same patterns of thinking that hate and extremism are just part of this world and that the free market (of ideas) will solve everything with proper education and personal responsibility. That any solution that isn't perfect or has a downside for them personally is worthless because they're so insulated from the actual harm being done.
That's all fine and good in a world where everyone is acting in good faith, truthfully, and that propaganda, and emotional manipulation don't exist. But the internet isn't some some big Socratic circle.
The people in the comments here haven't had their online life improved by a huge subreddit ban, forumn takedown, or twitterspehere implosion after having exactly zero power to do anything other than endure the abuse and hope to not catch their eye and it shows.
Like it's so frustrating to talk about issues like this on HN because huge swaths of the US part of crowd see themselves as very distant from the "gods & guns" crowd but then fall into the same patterns of thinking that hate and extremism are just part of this world and that the free market (of ideas) will solve everything with proper education and personal responsibility. That any solution that isn't perfect or has a downside for them personally is worthless because they're so insulated from the actual harm being done.
That's all fine and good in a world where everyone is acting in good faith, truthfully, and that propaganda, and emotional manipulation don't exist. But the internet isn't some some big Socratic circle.
The people in the comments here haven't had their online life improved by a huge subreddit ban, forumn takedown, or twitterspehere implosion after having exactly zero power to do anything other than endure the abuse and hope to not catch their eye and it shows.
Too late.
I mean, sure, it’s nice if it isn’t in your face all the time. I’m glad Google’s SafeSearch exists. But keeping people who are actually curious from finding things is much harder than that, and there are a lot of curious teenagers.
I mean, sure, it’s nice if it isn’t in your face all the time. I’m glad Google’s SafeSearch exists. But keeping people who are actually curious from finding things is much harder than that, and there are a lot of curious teenagers.
Agreed. But at the same time, a key part of normalization is constant exposure; people who are exposed to extreme views incessantly are less likely to recognize them as "extreme" than those who only see them once in a blue moon, and see them get moderated when they do.
This isn't even specific to extremist views or even politics in general; in all parts of life, from the foods people eat, to the religion they practice, to the music they enjoy: people will consider "normal" that which they constantly perceive.
This isn't even specific to extremist views or even politics in general; in all parts of life, from the foods people eat, to the religion they practice, to the music they enjoy: people will consider "normal" that which they constantly perceive.
sources[0]: I was susceptible to extremist thought (not actions, fortunately) when I was younger. The sense that I might get into trouble if I participated in fringe websites kept me from going further down the rabbit hole. I kept reading mainstream news and sites, and while I would give a lot of things an extremist spin in my mind, eventually the narrative stopped making sense.
sources[1]: https://twitter.com/iyad_elbaghdadi (can't find the specific Tweet, but he went through a similar experience, and almost became a full-blown extremist Muslim, before the sites he used to frequent were taken offline).