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

611–620 of 863 posts

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

#611

Post by louwrentius »

hef19898 wrote: post #114
dmingod666 wrote: post #17

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…

[flagged]

You seem to get down-voted but I agree with your view and I think is is funny that the free-speech-absolutists downvote / to take your speech away.

To be intolerant against intolerance is at the heart of any stable, decent, livable society. I don’t understand the view of the free-speech-absolutists because it is so obvious that it doesn’t work.

In Europe - or least in The Netherlands - saying discriminatory thing can get you fined or in jail and that is how it should be if you care about your society.

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

#612

Post by wtetzner »

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…

> 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.

The problem is that this is a very slippery slope. Who gets to decide what's OK and what's not?

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

#613

Post by dang »

ZebusJesus wrote: post #296

One side of extremism want to kill people the other doesn’t this is pretty simple

Please don't post unsubstantive flamewar comments to HN. They make even a wretched flamewar like this entire thread go into a deeper circle of hell.

We detached this subthread from https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26432675.

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

#614

Post by jimbokun »

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

This guy just plays further into the tropes that the original video was mocking.

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

#615

Post by dang »

colllectorof wrote: post #333
titzer wrote: post #263

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Every society exerts social pressure in the form of norms and shaming. People are only sensitive to the shaming they won't accept, which always seems to come from the people they disagree with, and they are completely blind to the shaming that goes on in their in-group.

>Every society exerts social pressure in the form of norms and shaming. HN crowd has a definite knack for packing heaps of erroneous thinking (or perhaps deliberate gaslighting) into compact sentences like these. Deplatforming is a tactic. One specifically designed to exert pressure in a direction not supported by the societal consensus. And yet in nearly every thread about it here, there are highly upvoted comments…

Please don't add supercilious dissing on top of the flamewar this thread has already degenerated into.

https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

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

#616

Post by DC1350 »

morelisp wrote: post #607
DC1350 wrote: post #570

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That’s not true. Not being attracted to transgender people is enough to get banned on Reddit. I was banned from r/asktransgender for telling a girl in a relationship with a pre-transition MtF person that it doesn’t make sense to call herself a lesbian (since sexual orientation is based on sex and not gender)

It sounds more like being an asshole in a forum that's not yours is enough to get you banned from reddit.

I’m gay so things like this matter to me. A lot of trans rhetoric is deeply homophobic.

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

#617

Post by wtetzner »

pjc50 wrote: post #477
Lammy wrote: post #383

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Al-Quaeda might not appreciate being labelled as extremists, but so what? We have to call things as we see them. And build a consensus around what's core values and within the normal range of debate, and what's beyond that into dangerous, destructive, and even murderous.

You ban dangerous actions, not speech. When you start censoring speech, you give a very small group of people the ability to silence whoever the please.

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

#618

Post by jimbokun »

bena wrote: post #275
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

Maybe you should sample some of the other content to get a feel of who this guy is before promoting his work based solely on the fact that you agree with an opinion you have. Because if someone has mostly bad opinions, you have to wonder if he managed to have just one good one or if this is a bad opinion too.

> Because if someone has mostly bad opinions, you have to wonder if he managed to have just one good one or if this is a bad opinion too.

You are arguing for ignoring the content of an opinion, and only evaluating it only by the association of people who agree or don't agree with it?

So, tribalism as the only acceptable form of reasoning?

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

#619

Post by buescher »

unethical_ban wrote: post #492
buescher wrote: post #395

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not only subjective terms like "extremism", but religious terms like "redeemable".

You and the people who talk like you are getting downvoted because you're contrarian without actually stating an opposition view to what you're ranting about. Someone: Extremism is bad. You: What is extreme is subjective. The next step would be for you to try to give counter points of what you think is extreme that others consider not, or better, what you think is not extreme that others consider so.

You're just fishing for a nice and spicy example. Here is a bland one. I have a big cup of coffee on my desk right now. There are very nice people right here in the USA, some of whom have been my neighbors and about whom I will say nothing derogatory, who think I am endangering my immortal soul by drinking from it. Some might consider taking one or the other stance extreme. I think weighing in publicly on whether such behavior is "redeemable" as if it is for you to decide is wholly inappropriate.

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

#620

Post by wtetzner »

unethical_ban wrote: post #492
buescher wrote: post #395

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not only subjective terms like "extremism", but religious terms like "redeemable".

You and the people who talk like you are getting downvoted because you're contrarian without actually stating an opposition view to what you're ranting about. Someone: Extremism is bad. You: What is extreme is subjective. The next step would be for you to try to give counter points of what you think is extreme that others consider not, or better, what you think is not extreme that others consider so.

> The next step would be for you to try to give counter points of what you think is extreme that others consider not, or better, what you think is not extreme that others consider so.

I don't think that's the next step. I think the point is that what is extreme will always be subjective, and there is danger in allowing some group of people to decide what speech is acceptable and what is not.

Post reply on HN