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

421–430 of 863 posts

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

#421

Post by Hitton »

smsm42 wrote: post #97
Zardoz84 wrote: post #27

You can't dialog with fascist.

If you want a definite proof you're wrong, read this: https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/kkk-klu-kl... This is the story of Daryl Davis, a black man who convinced 200 KKK members (yes, real violent racists, not just people who disagreed with you on tax rates) to change their ways. If a black man can do it by talking to KKK members, maybe it's after all possible for you to dialogue with your neighbor ab…

Protip: Don't start the conversation about tax rates by calling your neighbour "fascist" or "commie".

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

#422

Post by kbelder »

watwut wrote: post #273
TeMPOraL wrote: post #242

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's the other way around: these phrases are neutral observations and reasonable opinions, perhaps reasonable reactions to insanity of well-known political slogans - importantly, it's something a random person can come up independently, without reading the exact words first. But at some point, these phrases rapidly become politicized, and this catches a lot of people off guard. You voice your thoughts, fully expectin…

There was no "all lives matter" until there was "black lives matter" and people wanted to say they don't like the message. It is quite dishonest to claim that this phrase is neutral and not a political slogan.

What happened is that people heard the phrase "black lives matter", and were uncomfortable with the racial specificity. They wanted to _clarify_ it with the true fundamental principle.

Why do black lives matter? Because: All lives matter.

That is a non-racist perspective, and it was attacked viciously because it undercuts a propaganda effort.

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

#423

Post by recursive »

evan_ wrote: post #386
morpheos137 wrote: post #374

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

They do a lot more political coverage, and the number of professional politicians is probably similar.

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

#424

Post by ttt0 »

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

https://archive.is/ilHur

> One person was hit by a car in downtown Louisville, Kentucky, early on June 17 as protesters held an anti-racism demonstration at Jefferson Square, police said.

The story might be unrelated, but they knew exactly where it came from.

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

#425

Post by ralusek »

karaterobot wrote: post #328
ravenstine wrote: post #295

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…

> 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. Is the goal of social justice movements just to be hot topics? Your statement makes it seem like success is measured by the amount of retweets or something. Clearly that can't be true, but if global fascism and ethni…

I think the current primary strategy is to destabilize Western liberalism. Every tenet of liberalism is actively under attack, and successfully so.

Individualism? Long gone, the name of the game is collectivism and your identity groups are everything.

Color blindness? It's officially considered to be an outdated, laughable mode of thinking. If your identity collective is paramount, how can you be blind to the parameter by which we should first be characterizing you by?

Freedom of speech? Muh freeze peach. This is now a dog whistle value for hate speech. Freedom of speech just means freedom for the identity groups in oppressive positions.

Rule of law? The application of the law should, of course, not be universal. It should be applied with context, with the context being...you guessed it...your identity group.

Objectivity? Facts? Reason? Tools of the colonialists in order to snuff out alternative modes of thinking. Any claim at truth is simply done within the context of the identity group.

If you don't think the left has succeeded in this objective, I don't know what planet you're living on. As a liberal, I can hardly communicate with any of my peers within the framework that has been foundational to Western civilization.

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

#426

Post by websites2323 »

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…

We haven’t totally lost the ability to have a civil discussion, we’ve just for some reason raised the stakes to mean that we should be able to have a civil discussion in a forum of hundreds of people, behind screens. Civil discussion exists plenty in smaller forums, like group chats and discords and slacks where people care about being civil.

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

#427

Post by jawarner »

monkeypizza wrote: post #265
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…

If you define away neutrality, there is no neutrality, yes. But does everyone agree with your definition? This seems more like a "you're with us or against us" trick. "I care about protecting all children" is still neutral, right? But if someone popularized "ICAPBC", by your argument "ICAPAC" would innately become a shibboleth? Something doesn't seem right here, where neutral positions automatically get converted to…

What is neutrality in this scenario? BLM is about protesting anti-black racial injustice in the criminal justice system. Is neutral ground that there is no injustice? That it doesn't matter?

Yes, there was violence at a small fraction of protests, and it's fair to have pushback on that. That seems a separate issue than rejecting BLM on the face of it with an expression like ALM.

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

#428

Post by f154hfds »

AshWolfy wrote: post #385
f154hfds wrote: post #257

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

Thanks for the reasoned alternative perspective. He misses the whole point of the video though, which is:

Emphasizing race as the most important determinant of an individual is regressive, not progressive.

It's possible for a reactionary agenda to fall prey to the errors of its foe, and that's exactly what's happening with anti-racism today.

The only way to move forward is to tackle racism with explicitly non-racist policies, not anti-racist ones.

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

#429

Post by splistud »

ForHackernews wrote: post #398
ralusek wrote: post #384

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

Yeah, absolutely! In the US, Trump lost the election and we have a genuine shot at police reform for the first time in a generation. In Europe, the pandemic has exposed the incompetence of empty populism.

summary: looks great through your rose-colored telescope eh?

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

#430

Post by AshWolfy »

vwatson wrote: post #291
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 Popper part is easy: In the 1970s, during the student revolts, many right leaning people (who would be called fascists these days) got platforms on talk shows and politely debated their left wing counterparts. It did not lead to the Fourth Reich, on the contrary, public opinion has shifted to the left in and after the 70s. The right wing backlash you see now is a direct result of the insanity and totalitarianism…

You can draw a line from rush limbaugh to tuker carlson, they built a legion of people who they encouraged not to think for themselves and now they are sicking them on the world

>insanity and totalitarianism

citation needed? Thats literally the same line limbaugh used in the 70s

Post reply on HN