631–640 of 863 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The winning approach is obviously in waiting for the other side to die off; the left is currently the majority, and the right is, on average, old. In this regard, it's absolutely a "viable approach": By making it low-status to be right-wing, or even by not carrying right-wing views on popular private platforms, it makes the right-wing destined to lose out somewhere along the line simply due to the youth not wanting t…
The weird problem with this strategy is that there's a number of people who become more conservative, for whatever reason, as they get older. The generation that comprised the hippies are now in their 80s. Mitch McConnell would have been in that generation. So while the current crop of conservatives are dying off, they are being replaced by new members.
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.
This is a major and serious point. A large part of the discourse has become slapping the "extremist" label on every dissenting argument from the other side, regardless of where the position actually is. If you ban extremist speech, then what you've done is create incentive to label everything as extremist.
Sounds reasonable, but the real fun begins when you add: "Everyone who disagrees with us is a Nazi."
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>"Fringe" websites are growing rapidly while engagement on the big, normal websites is declining or slowing down. source?
I don't know about engagement on mainstream sites declining, but the rising popularity of sites like Parler and Gab seems undeniable. Parler's recent (attempted) deplatforming is evidence enough: you don't bother with a tiny fringe site that isn't growing or wielding any influence.
It does? Any evidence to support this?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Can anyone name a time in history where the people censoring things turned out to be the "Good Guys"?
Censorship of child pornography?
Then, at the arbitrary age of 18, we (the US, other countries differ) decided they can participate in, create, and distribute as much self-pornographic material as they want.
The entire LEO world dedicated to combating child pornography revolves around the exploitation of children and how wrong that is.
That's not quite the same as banning ideas, books, etc, simply because some find the words objectionable.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
There are different types of extremists, and only one type of extremism is targeted by the mainstream broadcast sites. It's tiring hearing the "megaphone" meme. It's a loaded term and means more than its literal meaning. There are extremists on the left and the right. If you only only target extremism on the right, you might think you're doing a service, but in fact you're going to make the problem worse. Here come t…
1. In what way does it make it worse? 2. Do you have some common examples of left wing extremism that are rampant and unchecked? I have many examples in my personal Facebook feed of right wing extremism, but few or perhaps no left wing extremism, despite many of my right wing friends voicing a similar complaint.
1. Because you're not actually removing right-wing extremism (which would be nice), you're pushing people into the corner. You can't legally or morally prevent people from having extremist views among themselves, having conversations, and in an Internet age you're going to play wack-a-mole if you try to chase after things, monitor and shut things down. Not to mention the overreach inherent in a real crackdown. By punishing them publicly, you feed into conspiracy theories, you feed into the idea that they are victimized, you feed into the idea of bias, and in the end you make people, more, not less radicalized.
edit: two more (I think) good arguments. One, the U.S. has less extremism than Germany or France, with regards to right-wing extremism, and yet those countries have hate speech laws and ban books and fine people with extremist views. Yet, the FN in France and the AFD in Germany have power locally and possibly nationally. Two, people will use innuendo and implication and code. Thus, you have to ban the code and innuendo. Is that the path you want to go down, banning and evaluating interpretations of speech that is constantly changing as one thing gets banned and a new one sprouts?
This is not new, and we already know this, and we know this from over a century of extremist views. It's not in 2015 that magically extremism started to exist.
The correct way to combat right-wing extremism is to let people be lunatics, make it obvious that they are lunatics, reply to the lunatics with logic and reason, and don't infantalize viewers are being influenced by bad views.
The "megaphone" theory being espoused by mainstream pro-censorship tech people is a cover for the underlying assumption: I know what's good for you, and I feel if I hide content from you, then I can prevent you from being influenced, in short, I, tech censor, protect you from yourself.
I cannot get behind that, and I hope the question that should be on everyone's mind is, who decides what's extremism.
2. Absolutely. Where do you want to start. I could go to Twitter and spend a few minutes to find some, but that would be awkward and appear like cherry picking. There were and still are many posts asking for abolishing of government, of authorities, of institutions. That's been extremist since the 19th century. With regards to racist speech, I offer to you Sarah Jeong (editor from the NYT) tweets which were deleted and apologized (ish) for, but had the editorial board stand behind her and no warnings from Twitter itself.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The right supports environmentalism and healthcare. They disagree with specific leftist plans. The official right wing position towards the left is "your outcome would be lovely, but it isn't worth the excessive cost to getting there". There isn't a sizeable lobby who is "against environmentalism", for example. There is a huge lobby who just doesn't see how a comfortable living standard can be achieved without fossil…
> The right supports environmentalism and healthcare. They disagree with specific leftist plans. Can you give me one right-leaning healthcare or environmental "plan" that anybody in congress is pushing that will cover every American 100% for healthcare, drugs, mental health, dental, etc? Single-payer is the best plan I've seen because it negotiates rates for drugs in bulk - one price for all of America and the govern…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Reminds me of some test I read in a book (can't remember which one). A teacher asks some student to stand up and raise his hands before him. The teacher stands in front of him and does the same, touching the students hands. Then the teacher starts pushing, and the student uses force to stay in place. Then the teacher uses more force, and so does the student. Finally the teacher asks: "Whay are you pushing me?". "Beca…
> ... You cannot expect people to give in once you start pushing. On the contrary, Chinese martial arts (as well as physical exercise more generally, as with Tai chi chu'an) use the pushing hands exercise to teach how to skillfully yield and redirect the other party's power. It's viewed as foundational to the entire discipline.
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.
This is a major and serious point. A large part of the discourse has become slapping the "extremist" label on every dissenting argument from the other side, regardless of where the position actually is. If you ban extremist speech, then what you've done is create incentive to label everything as extremist.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
There are different types of extremists, and only one type of extremism is targeted by the mainstream broadcast sites. It's tiring hearing the "megaphone" meme. It's a loaded term and means more than its literal meaning. There are extremists on the left and the right. If you only only target extremism on the right, you might think you're doing a service, but in fact you're going to make the problem worse. Here come t…
1. In what way does it make it worse? 2. Do you have some common examples of left wing extremism that are rampant and unchecked? I have many examples in my personal Facebook feed of right wing extremism, but few or perhaps no left wing extremism, despite many of my right wing friends voicing a similar complaint.