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

411–420 of 863 posts

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

#411

Post by slibhb »

kthejoker2 wrote: post #229

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 * ...…

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.

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

#412

Post by jawarner »

SpicyLemonZest wrote: post #284
DanHulton wrote: post #252

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

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 cl…

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."

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

#413

Post by maedla »

morpheos137 wrote: post #342
heterodoxxed wrote: post #339

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 b…

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.

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

#414

Post by marcosdumay »

glogla wrote: post #274
marcosdumay wrote: post #249

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

You can be Left without empathizing with people who want you dead. That's a pretty straightforward application of Paradox of Tolerance.

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.

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

#415

Post by throwaway53453 »

albedoa wrote: post #370
throwaway53453 wrote: post #324

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

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.

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

#416

Post by runarberg »

morpheos137 wrote: post #315
thomastjeffery wrote: post #292

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"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.

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 ha…

> 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.

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

#417

Post by AshWolfy »

marcus_holmes wrote: post #396
kthejoker2 wrote: post #229

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 * ...…

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 t…

JK rowling tolerant? Is this the same woman who wrote a race of hooked nose greedy villians who control all the world's banks into her books?

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

#418

Post by leetcrew »

runarberg wrote: post #402
throwaway53453 wrote: post #307

Earlier quoted context omitted.

God help the mixed race people who have it from both the left and right...

The left does not hate white people. It is reactionary rhetoric that is trying to raise a false equivalence. The left hates white supremacy and white privilege . If you are a white person that basks in your privilege, the left doesn’t hate you because of the color of your skin, but because of how you act as a result of it.

and people have explained this to me while drinking out of a mug that says "white tears". it's hard not to take that as a motte-and-bailey.

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

#419

Post by AshWolfy »

slibhb wrote: post #411
kthejoker2 wrote: post #229

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 * ...…

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 C…

So hatred is only hatred if you act on it?

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

#420

Post by recursive »

AshWolfy wrote: post #399
ttt0 wrote: post #363

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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...

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.

Post reply on HN