A Heretic's Guide to Deplatforming • Hacker News Board

Re: A Heretic's Guide to Deplatforming

#61

Post by JoshTriplett » Fri, Nov 02, 2018, 8:56 PM UTC

msla wrote: post #26

JoshTriplett wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Define intolerance That thing everyone except the intolerant seem to understand remarkably well, and the intolerant spend a lot of time quibbling over the definition of in a desperate attempt to derail their inclusion in it. Or, more seriously: treating other people as unwelcome or hated or less than human, for reasons other than being hateful and intolerant.

> That thing everyone except the intolerant seem to understand remarkably well Another example of trying to shut down discussion. For example, a substantial number of people around the world understand 'tolerance' to mean 'nobody insults my religion' which, of course, means 'nobody depicts homosexual relationships'. Therefore, depicting homosexuality is intolerant, hein ?

> Another example of trying to shut down discussion.

If I were attempting to shut down discussion, I wouldn't have included a more serious version of the definition, in addition to the observation that it's remarkable how often people who want to play rules-lawyer with terms like "intolerant" or "bigot" or "racist" or "sexist" seem primarily interested in carefully excluding their own behavior, or that of groups they consider themselves affiliated with, or in general how often they're speaking from a position as a member of a privileged group.

> For example, a substantial number of people around the world understand 'tolerance' to mean 'nobody insults my religion' which, of course, means 'nobody depicts homosexual relationships'.

Hence tolerating everyone except the intolerant. Membership in one marginalized group does not provide a free pass for intolerance against another, nor does it entitle you to attack another or make another feel unwelcome. You deserve to not be discriminated against or excluded on the basis of your religious beliefs, but not if you're using them to attack other people or deny their rights based on (for instance) gender or orientation. Likewise for cis women intolerant of transwomen, white women intolerant of people of color, LG in LGBTQ+ intolerant of the B and T, and so on.

Re: A Heretic's Guide to Deplatforming

#62

Post by JoshTriplett » Fri, Nov 02, 2018, 8:58 PM UTC

ksdale wrote: post #34

JoshTriplett wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Indeed. The slippery slope is a fallacy , after all; you can in fact take a positive step without worrying about taking negative steps that are so absurdly different as to be almost caricatures.

Just because the slippery slope fallacy exists doesn't mean that every warning about unintended consequences is necessarily wrong. That would be a fallacy in the opposite direction.

Certainly. But observing unintended consequences of a specific action is quite different from claiming that that action is a slippery slope to further actions that are not in fact planned.

Re: A Heretic's Guide to Deplatforming

#63

Post by watwut » Fri, Nov 02, 2018, 8:58 PM UTC

manfredo wrote: post #57

watwut wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You can tolerate both, unless you are killed or injured by someone convinced on those words. Or, less dramatically, unless your salary is lower, because words convinced them that your kind is to be treated with more suspicion. You can tolerate extremism as long as you are not the target of said extremism. When you are the target, you have no choice. The believe in Jewish control of media is reinforced by people who p…

The point in making is, the injuries you listed are the result of actions, not words. Trying to equate words with actions of a few people that act on them is a very dangerous line of thinking. It's the same logic behind people that wanted to ban Muslims from entering the country after 9/11. After all, if 11 people shot dead is sufficient to warrant suppression of speech, then surely 3 thousand does as well. And for w…

Nevertheless, you made quite a lot of untrue statements previously. You don't care about that, pushing yet another point unrelated point.

Suddenly we are talking about 9/11 through we talked about nazism before. Because apparently to you, there is equivalence between being Muslim and being Nazi. As if Nazism had many interpretations (it does not have) or as if it allowed peaceful coexistence with others in some branches. It does not, the ideology itself is closer to ISIS ideology - it demands obedience, violent masculinity, winners take all mentality and demands to conquer the world.

Note that I did not said whether and what limitations should there be on speech. But, my impression is that people who pretend to care about that are more interested in making Nazi sound better then they are.

Regardless of whether there should be limitations on speech, speech we are talking about is especially crafted and designed to make people take violent action. It is done for that purpose and synagogue shooting (or beheading) is its success as intended. Lets not lie or pretend it is otherwise.

Re: A Heretic's Guide to Deplatforming

#64

Post by dragonwriter » Fri, Nov 02, 2018, 9:00 PM UTC

roenxi wrote: post #51

throwawaysea wrote: post #22

This is a good article that explores many of the angles involved. Deplatforming is a dangerous step for a free society, especially when so much power is accumulated in a few platforms* The big risk is this: when only a few entities funnel so much societal discourse or control our communication infrastructure or process payments, those entities making arbitrary decisions about who they serve has similar impacts and ri…

> has similar impacts and risks to the government imposing similar restrictions through the law We can't really compare them to the government until they have a standing army. That said, pure scale does matter. There will debate over whether powerful organisations are currently benign or hostile, but there is no doubt whatsoever that they are a mighty force. If Google or Facebook ever decides to seriously wake up pol…

> We can't really compare them to the government until they have a standing army.

While I disagree that the firms in question have government-like comprehensive power, even without their own army, a monopoly or coordinating oligopoly able to lock out new participants on essential communication services would have such power, and be a de facto part of the government, even if they lacked formal command relationship over the armed forces of the host state.

Re: A Heretic's Guide to Deplatforming

#65

Post by DoreenMichele » Fri, Nov 02, 2018, 9:04 PM UTC

Gab illustrates a “catch-22” around setting out to be specifically a “free speech platform”. You initially appeal to the most fringe elements of public discourse. Your first wave of users are going to be people for whom this has been a problem, and if you’re an absolutist and let them on then suddenly that’s your base.

For me, this is one of the more profound take-aways from the article. This piece is very thought provoking.

Re: A Heretic's Guide to Deplatforming

#66

Post by manfredo » Fri, Nov 02, 2018, 9:05 PM UTC

JoshTriplett wrote: post #14

tunesmith wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Define intolerance. That's the whole problem. So being "intolerant of intolerance" is meaningless except as something that signals a different meaning - different lines, different behavior, different standards - to every listener.

> Define intolerance That thing everyone except the intolerant seem to understand remarkably well, and the intolerant spend a lot of time quibbling over the definition of in a desperate attempt to derail their inclusion in it. Or, more seriously: treating other people as unwelcome or hated or less than human, for reasons other than being hateful and intolerant.

In my experience, introspective people that constantly doubt and rethink their perception of intolerance are the most tolerant people I've met. Those that have strong conviction in their ideas of intolerance and assume that their said ideas about it are universal tend to be the opposite. And plenty of people quibble over what it means to be "intolerant" not to avoid their own inclusion in the term, but to expand the term to include their own political opponents under the umbrella of intolerance.

Re: A Heretic's Guide to Deplatforming

#67

Post by msla » Fri, Nov 02, 2018, 9:07 PM UTC

JoshTriplett wrote: post #61

msla wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> That thing everyone except the intolerant seem to understand remarkably well Another example of trying to shut down discussion. For example, a substantial number of people around the world understand 'tolerance' to mean 'nobody insults my religion' which, of course, means 'nobody depicts homosexual relationships'. Therefore, depicting homosexuality is intolerant, hein ?

> Another example of trying to shut down discussion. If I were attempting to shut down discussion, I wouldn't have included a more serious version of the definition, in addition to the observation that it's remarkable how often people who want to play rules-lawyer with terms like "intolerant" or "bigot" or "racist" or "sexist" seem primarily interested in carefully excluding their own behavior, or that of groups they…

So, if you have Group A and Group B, each claiming the other is doing horrible, offensive things, which group gets deplatformed?

Since I can't legitimately reply yet, consider this a reply:

> any group not specifically defined by their intolerance.

So, would that be Hezbollah or Shas?

Re: A Heretic's Guide to Deplatforming

#68

Post by manfredo » Fri, Nov 02, 2018, 9:08 PM UTC

watwut wrote: post #63

manfredo wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The point in making is, the injuries you listed are the result of actions, not words. Trying to equate words with actions of a few people that act on them is a very dangerous line of thinking. It's the same logic behind people that wanted to ban Muslims from entering the country after 9/11. After all, if 11 people shot dead is sufficient to warrant suppression of speech, then surely 3 thousand does as well. And for w…

Nevertheless, you made quite a lot of untrue statements previously. You don't care about that, pushing yet another point unrelated point. Suddenly we are talking about 9/11 through we talked about nazism before. Because apparently to you, there is equivalence between being Muslim and being Nazi. As if Nazism had many interpretations (it does not have) or as if it allowed peaceful coexistence with others in some branc…

> Because apparently to you, there is equivalence between being Muslim and being Nazi.

I'm sorry but this is such a blatant fabrication that I cannot take any further words you write seriously. Any reasonable reading of my comment would recognize that references to Islam is to serve as an example of an intolerance perpetrated under the rationale of excluding the intolerant (e.g. calls to ban Muslims after 9/11). Did you ignore the part where I prefaced this as a "very dangerous line of thinking"? The whole point is that "intolerance of the intolerant is okay" often fuels intolerant thinking itself. How you concluded that my comments equated Islam with Nazism is beyond me.

Re: A Heretic's Guide to Deplatforming

#69

Post by JoshTriplett » Fri, Nov 02, 2018, 9:14 PM UTC

wycs wrote: post #18

JoshTriplett wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Define intolerance That thing everyone except the intolerant seem to understand remarkably well, and the intolerant spend a lot of time quibbling over the definition of in a desperate attempt to derail their inclusion in it. Or, more seriously: treating other people as unwelcome or hated or less than human, for reasons other than being hateful and intolerant.

Yes. It is all very obvious. For example, suppose a marginalized group uses the hashtag #killallwhitemen to express the disempowerment they feel from the historical weight of white privilege. This, I think we can all agree, is an expression of righteous outrage through hyperbole, not intolerance. In fact, "white men" in this context does not refer to any person or group of people, rather a self-reenforcing system of…

(In case it doesn't go without saying, lest silence be interpreted as agreeing with this response: no, both of these parody arguments are completely ridiculous. Both of these have superficial similarity to useful discussions, but have intentionally turned them into absurdist parody in order to mock actual notions of tolerance.)

Re: A Heretic's Guide to Deplatforming

#70

Post by JoshTriplett » Fri, Nov 02, 2018, 9:17 PM UTC

manfredo wrote: post #66

JoshTriplett wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Define intolerance That thing everyone except the intolerant seem to understand remarkably well, and the intolerant spend a lot of time quibbling over the definition of in a desperate attempt to derail their inclusion in it. Or, more seriously: treating other people as unwelcome or hated or less than human, for reasons other than being hateful and intolerant.

In my experience, introspective people that constantly doubt and rethink their perception of intolerance are the most tolerant people I've met. Those that have strong conviction in their ideas of intolerance and assume that their said ideas about it are universal tend to be the opposite. And plenty of people quibble over what it means to be "intolerant" not to avoid their own inclusion in the term, but to expand the…

> In my experience, introspective people that constantly doubt and rethink their perception of intolerance are the most tolerant people I've met.

I've found this to be true of many different areas. The more certain you are, the less you're open to continuous learning. Have a well-calibrated idea of your own understanding, and scale your confidence accordingly.

In general, the concept of tolerance and intolerance should be fairly universal; the implementation of tolerance relies on a substantial and growing amount of working social knowledge.