You can't censor away extremism or any other problem • Hacker News Board

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

#441

Post by cassalian » Fri, Mar 12, 2021, 5:37 PM UTC

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.

There are people on the left that assume that if you have white skin, then you must act a certain way, and that way of acting is wrong. This is based solely on the person's race, no individual characteristics need be considered.

If you disagree, then please explain what happened here with coke: https://www.entrepreneur.com/article/366132 "Coca-Cola Asks Its Workers to Be 'Less White' to Fight Racism"

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

#442

Post by morpheos137 » Fri, Mar 12, 2021, 5:38 PM UTC

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.

Well sports news is entertainment. There are specialised sports reporters and sports segments. Sports fans don't usually burn down city blocks when their team loses. Maybe identity politics outrage news is also serving a market demand. However it should be clear if the news is not proactive and tethered to underlying reality, i.e. if police are not actually racist as portrayed by CNN then the net social effect of such fake news is clearly negative. I don't think there is a such thing as fake sports news. There is clearly fake business news. When the media promotes ideas like ubiquitous AI and self driving cars it leads to malinvestment.

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

#443

Post by ethbr0 » Fri, Mar 12, 2021, 5:38 PM UTC

Lammy wrote: post #383

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.

As a child, I admit I was wholly taken in by digital IP extremists. The danger is real!

They convinced me that information should be free, that it was my right to download and share anything digital, and that the internet was a borderless utopia of knowledge, limited only by our imaginations.

Now, I see the error of my ways and the harm I, and those who thought like me, caused to content creators and distributors.

I understand that the internet is safer, more secure, and better when suckled through the benevolent teat of large corporations, whose wisdom and foresight allows it to be restricted, filtered, and repackaged into a socially beneficial form.

Don't make the same mistakes I did! Trust in the system.

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

#444

Post by AshWolfy » Fri, Mar 12, 2021, 5:39 PM UTC

f154hfds wrote: post #428

AshWolfy wrote: post #385

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Thats true, which is why most of the left has adopted intersectionality, which says an individual is the sum total of their experiences, rather than this or that identity

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

#445

Post by AshWolfy » Fri, Mar 12, 2021, 5:39 PM UTC

ttt0 wrote: post #424

AshWolfy wrote: post #399

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

citation needed

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

#446

Post by morpheos137 » Fri, Mar 12, 2021, 5:39 PM UTC

mlthoughts2018 wrote: post #393

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…

Thinking it is an unjustified proportion seems exceedingly racist on your part. The equivalency between proportion of attention paid to harmed groups and size of the group, especially for groups as large as ~12%, is inherently quite an extreme racist stance to take. I’m sure you wouldn’t agree, but that’s exactly the problem. As long as we’ve got people acting like NPR’s current amount of coverage including racial an…

In a world where resources including time are scarce there is something to be gained from allocating time toward beneficial activities. I got to stop interacting with this thread now to practice what I preach.

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

#447

Post by AshWolfy » Fri, Mar 12, 2021, 5:41 PM UTC

recursive wrote: post #420

AshWolfy wrote: post #399

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

The implication was that npr was smearing this woman, rather than the editors being lazy. All in service to the argument that npr focuses on race, despite there being no evidence

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

#448

Post by throwaway316943 » Fri, Mar 12, 2021, 5:41 PM UTC

mywittyname wrote: post #322

willcipriano wrote: post #286

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Interesting thought, it would seem to follow that those less effected by social shaming might find themselves at a evolutionary advantage over those that are greatly effected. For example those who ignore prohibitions on premarital sex may have more children overall.

Except that society has a mechanism for for enforcing social norms: laws. Premarital sex might seem like an evolutionary advantage, unless you live in a society that murders you for such activities. You are right though, which is why high-status in a society are "allowed" to break social norms with no consequence.

You can pass all the laws you want but if they aren’t backed up by a general consensus in the society they will be defied at every turn.

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

#449

Post by morpheos137 » Fri, Mar 12, 2021, 5:42 PM UTC

runarberg wrote: post #416

morpheos137 wrote: post #315

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 disa…

>Experts in criminology pretty much agree that racial justice is a problem in urban and sub urban USA, including police violence.

Because if they don't they are racist. Right?

To me racial justice means that you are not treated differently simply because of your race. In 2021 in America there is no evidence that people are treated differently just because of their race. There is plenty of evidence that people living in high crime areas, engaging in suspicious activities like passing counterfeit money while high on meth and fentanyl are treated differently from your average joe regardless of skin colour.

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

#450

Post by AshWolfy » Fri, Mar 12, 2021, 5:42 PM UTC

slibhb wrote: post #431

AshWolfy wrote: post #419

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So hatred is only hatred if you act on it?

There's a distinction to be made between disapproval and hatred. But there's plenty of both to go around. Neither of them are synonymous with intolerance.

hatred begets intolerance