Live data from Hacker News

You can't censor away extremism or any other problem

freddiedeboer.substack.com

361–370 of 863 posts

Re: You can't censor away extremism or any other problem

#361
post #299

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

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.

Re: You can't censor away extremism or any other problem

#362

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 de…

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 s…

> 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?

Re: You can't censor away extremism or any other problem

#363

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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...

Re: You can't censor away extremism or any other problem

#364

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

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.

Re: You can't censor away extremism or any other problem

#365

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 * ...…

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.

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.

Re: You can't censor away extremism or any other problem

#366

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.

any examples?

Re: You can't censor away extremism or any other problem

#367

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

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.

Re: You can't censor away extremism or any other problem

#368
post #348

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

> 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?

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.

Re: You can't censor away extremism or any other problem

#369

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…

> "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.

Re: You can't censor away extremism or any other problem

#370

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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...

> 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 desi…

Careful, we might begin to suspect that you did not ask your question unironically or in good faith.
Post reply on HN