Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

You can't censor away extremism or any other problem

freddiedeboer.substack.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

381–390 of 863 posts

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

#381

Post by CharlesW »

ryandrake wrote: post #332
ThrustVectoring wrote: post #303

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 "Laffe…

> 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.…

> 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.

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

#382

Post by Aunche »

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.

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

#383

Post by Lammy »

ralmidani wrote: post #351

You can't censor it away completely, but 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. 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. sources[0]: I was susceptible to extr…

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.

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

#384

Post by ralusek »

jdlyga wrote: post #372
ralmidani wrote: post #351

You can't censor it away completely, but 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. 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. sources[0]: I was susceptible to extr…

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?

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

#385

Post by AshWolfy »

f154hfds wrote: post #257
NaturalPhallacy wrote: post #93

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

Except it doesnt even resemble what the left believes

this is a good breakdown https://youtu.be/m0ZDHgD9084?t=950

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

#386

Post by evan_ »

morpheos137 wrote: post #374
evan_ wrote: post #362

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 percen…

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…

Why does the news spend so much time on sports coverage? Only like 0.0001% of the population play sports professionally.

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

#387

Post by ttt0 »

mindcandy wrote: post #305
lighttannotwite wrote: post #279

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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" (whic…

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 peopl…

I'm pretty sure he's not the one who's falling into a trap here, precisely for the reasons you mentioned.

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

#388

Post by leereeves »

tehjoker wrote: post #264
leereeves wrote: post #206

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Unfortunately it can be difficult to tell who empathizes with the masses and who is just pretending to in pursuit of power.

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 redistrib…

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).

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

#389

Post by albedoa »

ttt0 wrote: post #112
k4c9x wrote: post #98

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, it's: 1. Declare people that want a fascists form of government fascists 2. there is no 2. It's not word play, it's just facts.

You mean like corporatism? I don't think I ever saw anyone arguing for that besides left-wingers. Not explicitly at least. Or do you mean fascist as a slur, ie. anything I don't like?

Are those really the only two meanings of fascism you can think of.

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

#390

Post by clairity »

DubiousPusher wrote: post #13

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 prev…

> "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.

Post reply on HN