261–270 of 413 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Inasmuch as different parts of society disagree on how to "improve" it, one part does not have the right to censor the other.
Racism and white supremacy are not valid viewpoints.
Soviet censorship vectors were able to wrap dissenting viewpoints as "counter-revolutionary" or "bourgeois" without regard for the consistency of content to the wrapper.
Reddit back in the day: bans /r/fatpeoplehate, /r/coontown, /r/jailbait, and other awful subreddits. Reddit today: effectively bans (quarantines) /r/waterniggas simply because of the subreddit's title. It was quite literally a joke subreddit about being hydrated. Doesn't ban subreddits like /r/hapas. Edit: The problem with reddit is that it's wildly inconsistent about banning subreddits. Insane subreddits can exist f…
/r/hapas seems to be filled with more self-pity than hate. Reading the comments, these are actually mixed-raced kids talking about the racism they face from not only their peers, but also their own family.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Obviously for the people who posting it and maybe many more people, it is not shit. Well, its trash for you but treasure for others. To them you are the assholes for calling it trash or wanting to get rid of it. Its all have to do with agreeing and disagreeing. To them proper places of discussion is the place where you can have comments like that. Its all matter of prespective.
Sorry but when you justify giving abhorrent statements like that a platform with perspective, please keep in mind that this absolute definition of free speech is not reflected in the whole world. Posting something like that in Germany would likely get you at least some sort of lawsuit and from my "perspective" that's a good thing. We as society can certainly discuss where the specific line is that needs to be crossed…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yes, and one of us is right, and another one of us is wrong. That's fine.
So how do you define right or wrong ?
Easily: what is right improves the human condition and reduces suffering. What is wrong does the opposite.
Let me short-circuit your next question, which is surely "how do you measure what improves the human condition, and what is suffering?" We have to use our judgment, which we are graced with by virtue of being moral agents. This is subjective, like anything worth doing, which means we sometimes get it wrong. And that's fine. The fact that we sometimes imprison innocent people doesn't invalidate wholesale the concept of a system of justice.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yes, parts of society absolutely have the right to censor other parts of society. Just as we have the right to imprison, or regulate, or chide, or squelch. None of these things are sacred and inviolable lines. All of them are tools, which we have the moral obligation to use, judiciously, to improve the human condition.
Free speech improves the human condition. Therefore, by your own argument, the authorities have the moral obligation to forcibly censor your own anti-free speech comments.
Free speech is an amoral tool, which can be used to improve or degrade the human condition, when wielded appropriately. It's our job to decide when and how to use it, and not act naïvely and pretend it's a virtue in itself.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Racist online communities aren't difficult to find. The problems brew on the fringes first. Regardless of how they might see it, I think the close proximity to the rest of the public erodes it's power.
How do you simultaneously believe that close proximity weakens this stuff, but that you can't accidentally stumble onto it? Make the proximity close enough, and it becomes mainstream content, which you appear to view as a bad thing. Those appear contradictory.
Because even on a platform like reddit, these aren't front-page items nor anything that will casually be brought to attention. If you want to share piece of shit ideology, you have to find piece of shit subs, and they're micro communities.
The reason I think the proximity in that instance helps is users are more likely to interact with users from other popular subs. I've seen racists spring up odd places, get downvoted into oblivion, but will engage in argument. In my view it's more important that they engage with the rest of the population.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I find this extremely hard to believe. I disagree with white supremacists, anti-vaxxers, and people who defend sex offenders. I also disagree with think that JSON is more readable than YAML, that C++ is a good language to teach beginners, and that Apache is more user-friendly than nginx. Only one of these groups is "toxic" to me. But just "people I disagree with" is not an accurate representation as to why I find the…
I don't think "causing harm to the general public" is at all a good metric to decide "toxic". I've had to deal with more trouble caused by people who insist on using Apache than I've had caused by white supremacists, and I don't think I've ever met someone who "defends sex offenders" (as a general position). To begin with, "causing harm" is still essentialyl subjective. An anti-vaxxer wouldn't think they're "causing…
It's not about whether you think you're causing harm... It's about whether you objectively are.
Anti-vaxxers have led to the resurgence of diseases once thought to be extinct.
White supremacists carry out acts of terrorism/violence against people of color, and lobby against laws that would improve the quality of life for minority groups (sometimes, they are actually the elected officials voting on these laws). And that's just the tip of the iceberg.
People who defend sex offenders let alleged rapists get elected to the highest legal office in the land just because of party affiliation.
That is in no way comparable to using Apache over nginx.
It "worked" only if the definition is "it removed it from Reddit". As the article mentions, these people did not just disappear or change their mind. They just moved to more obscure places, where they can continue and be evem more motivated, because now they have been censored. And you might still consider this to be a satisfiable definition for "it worked". Out of sight, out of mind. Except that, these people are no…
> It "worked" only if the definition is "it removed it from Reddit". As the article mentions, these people did not just disappear or change their mind. They just moved to more obscure places, where they can continue and be evem more motivated, because now they have been censored. What about all of the new people who would have more easily stumbled into those cesspools, but now have to take quite a bit more effort, an…
Unless, of, course, the disease is cancer.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That's not the kind of content you just stumble upon. If they sought that out they'd just as well have sought out other forums, so I find it moot that they happen to find racist content they found agreeable on reddit that further radicalized them. It's like the incels, they're just looking for a circle jerk. The reason I feels strongly about it is open discussion with racists have led to conversion away from white su…
Which is more likely, that you'll be able to convince a true believer to convert, or that a true believer well be able to convince someone on the fence? Putting racists on open platforms stops the second, and if you're so interested in changing their minds, nothing is stopping you from searching them out to do so. Daryl Davis went I to people's homes and met them in person to befriend and sometimes "convert" them. It…
What if said "on-the-fence" individual visits stormfront? Who's to argue against it there? No one.
> nothing is stopping you from searching them out to do so.
Except there is. Racist forums are walled gardens. They're safe-spaces for white supremacists. They don't invite dissent.
> Daryl Davis went I to people's homes and met them in person to befriend and sometimes "convert" them. It wasn't accidental cross pollination. He explicitly reached out.
In person, correct. If this is to be analogous to the real world, other users on a popular social media platform like reddit are your neighbors. And obscure radical forums are like impenetrable cult compounds. You can reach them out online, when in plain view, but this isn't as easily accomplished in every medium.
More importantly, you're framing racism as an infectious view that could plague just about any innocent bystander. It's more fragile than that, in terms of logical merit (there is none). I think the exposure makes it more vulnerable.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The thing is, Reddit isn't responsible for, and couldn't possibly begin be responsible for, hate in the whole world. They banned it on their site, and it cleaned up their corner of the world, and they're happy that the place they have control over has less hate. That's not bullshit. Bullshit is saying "well, we can't possibly get rid of it, so may as well let it stay where ever it shows up."
Except that you can get rid of it. I’ve rationally argued against racism with some success. (And often while getting comments autoblocked for hate speech. Can’t clean up manure without getting your hands a little dirty, unfortunately.) “Bullshit” is taking the easy way out by mass-automatic-deplatforming instead of addressing the bad thought head-on.