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

751–760 of 863 posts

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

#751

Post by NoodleIncident »

bleah1000 wrote: post #530
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…

This is just a few people explaining how they de-radicalized. Now imagine the opposite, someone with some slightly bad opinion suddenly finds themselves shut out of the main platforms because of hate speech rules. They now become more radicalized. Due to the number of people constantly being suspended/banned I think there is a greater chance that these people will become radicalized, than someone will realize they ha…

> This is just a few people explaining how they de-radicalized. Now imagine the opposite

How do you downplay "a few people" saying one thing, without giving even a single example of your imaginary opposite?

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

#752

Post by intended »

airhead969 wrote: post #733
claudiawerner wrote: post #717

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Now imagine the opposite, someone with some slightly bad opinion suddenly finds themselves shut out of the main platforms because of hate speech rules. They now become more radicalized. This is a bad argument; it is a fact, for example, that child pornography by being censored creates a taboo around it. It's also true that some people will seek it out because of its taboo nature - something it would not be (or only…

> Why should it be society's burden to deradicalize people? Because your neighbor's problem eventually becomes your problem. Cases in point: Saudi Arabia helps 9/11 terrorists; US meddling in South American politics promoting fascists, death squads, and the War on Drugs fueling powerful gangs and cartels; Western-caused climate change refugees fleeing Africa, the Middle East, and South America; Dec 8, 1947. > Does th…

Yes yes, and these arguments were all well and good when we were young and innocent on the internet.

But those arguments rested on so many assumption that the internet has disproved.

“When you editorialize instead of debate...” for example - There are ways to configure sentences that they will parasitically thrive on debate, without actually being debated. Like a virus that targets the immune system.

This happens all the time - cranks, nazis, racists of all stripes will want to start a discussion on “IQ” or some seemingly innocent facet so that they can appear to be a victim and radicalize minds which don’t have an anti virus pre installed.

I forget the original saying, but agitators deign to argue with you. They don’t really think your ideas or rebuttals are material, instead you are simply a backdrop for them to perform their recruitment drives.

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

#753

Post by stretchwithme »

hef19898 wrote: post #697
stretchwithme wrote: post #661

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There isn't a single widely-held opinion that did not begin as an extremist opinion. And plenty of irrational ideas that became widely held.

Only that we went already through the most hard core right wing positions, and it didn't end well. These experiments happened in the 1920s and 30s. Same goes for Stalins form of Communism, which by the way has nothing to do with socialism.

Just going by the definitions Google provides first, socialism seems pretty similiar to Communism or at least a superset of it.

Communism is intended to produce "a society in which all property is publicly owned and each person works and is paid according to their abilities and needs."

Socialism is "a political and economic theory of social organization which advocates that the means of production, distribution, and exchange should be owned or regulated by the community as a whole."

Socialism means the public owning or regulating everything. Communism is definitely about the public owning everything. And socialism is not necessarily about allocating by need the way Communism is supposed to be.

Maybe that's the National Socialists in Germany called themselves that. The State didn't own everything but it did try to control everything. For the good of the people. Well, some of the people. The definition of Socialism doesn't address that detail.

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

#754

Post by dominotw »

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 can't censor it away completely

I don't understand why everyone is saying this. There is not extremist content in north korea.

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

#755

Post by NoodleIncident »

CyberRabbi wrote: post #702
Falling3 wrote: post #476

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's completely disingenuous to categorize statements like "the US tax code is too complex" and "Jews are starting forest fires with space lasers" both as just 'political opinions'.

It’s only “disingenuous” if you aren’t a liberal. I’m a liberal so I believe people are free to hold any opinion they want as long as they are not promoting direct harm to anyone else and I will not be shamed out of a liberal position by exceptional strawmen.

https://nymag.com/intelligencer/article/marjorie-taylor-gree...

Blonde, sure, but IDK if I'd call her hair straw.

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

#756

Post by [deleted] »

Lammy wrote: post #742
claudiawerner wrote: post #717

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Now imagine the opposite, someone with some slightly bad opinion suddenly finds themselves shut out of the main platforms because of hate speech rules. They now become more radicalized. This is a bad argument; it is a fact, for example, that child pornography by being censored creates a taboo around it. It's also true that some people will seek it out because of its taboo nature - something it would not be (or only…

> it presupposes that free speech is so good and basic that it overrides all other rights. Yes. Speech is not action :)

[deleted]

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

#757

Post by NoodleIncident »

Alupis wrote: post #726
Pyramus wrote: post #722

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> If one side truly is righteous, it will prevail through open discussion and logic. Unfortunately that is not always how it works out. In Germany in the 1930s the idea that Jews/non-Arians have conspired against Germany and should be retaliated against was discussed openly - and accepted. Obviously it was not righteous. In several US states in the 1980s the idea that homo sapiens was created by God and creationism s…

The righteous ideals prevailed in the end, in both examples you provided - no? Nobody pretends Nazism never happened - that would be Censorship. Instead, you can buy, find, read about Nazism - including Mein Kumpf and more. Creationism is not a dominating idea in the US either - nobody censored Creationism (even to this day you can find private schools that teach it!). Instead, Creationism was defeated by questioning…

The allied forces did not storm Omaha beach on D-Day to openly discuss Nazism, in case you weren't aware

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

#758

Post by eeZah7Ux »

lliamander wrote: post #658
eeZah7Ux wrote: post #560

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> some slightly bad opinion suddenly finds themselves shut out of the main platforms because of hate speech rules A "slightly bad opinion" has to be more than "slightly bad" to break hate speech rules. If you feel a platform is overzealous in enforcing hate speech rules, don't use it. Or maybe ask yourself some questions before moving out. EDIT: the rain of downvotes is telling as usual.

> EDIT: the rain of downvotes is telling as usual. You suggest that people subject to social stigma and censure should "maybe ask [themselves] some questions". Do you think the reaction you are receiving should cause you to question your own position?

> Do you think the reaction you are receiving should cause you to question your own position?

If there was a clear accusation of hate speech on my behalf I would certainly do.

Would you?

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

#759

Post by roenxi »

cloverich wrote: post #621
roenxi wrote: post #149

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 official right wing position towards the left is "your outcome would be lovely, but it isn't worth the excessive cost to getting there". Which makes even less sense, because the right since Regan have nearly continuously run up the deficit. > The right supports environmentalism You cannot simultaneously deny climate change and support the environment. They are mutually exclusive.

> They are mutually exclusive.

They aren't. Eg, Germany has an energy policy shaped by an acceptance of global warming and their electricity grid is a hot mess compared to France that has better outcomes on pretty much every axis including emissions if you care about that. The French policy was shaped by military concerns about energy security.

And air/water/etc quality in the major US cities were off the charts good compared to the major Chinese cities, for a long period if not currently, and it has nothing to do with climate change.

Plus, the obvious way for the US to get knocked down to the #3 emissions producer from #2 is for India to industrialise, lifting the living standards of a billion people. I'd bet the actual environmental outcomes in India would improve if they burned fossil fuels like the US and China, then they'd tighten up environmental standards like the west has. In that instance that is a direct conflict between believing in climate change and actual observed environmental outcomes. There isn't really a question in hindsight that India should have done the same things as China in the 80s/90s and built up their coal fired power plants. That would have left them in a better position to tackle environmental issues today.

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

#760

Post by Alupis »

NoodleIncident wrote: post #757
Alupis wrote: post #726

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The righteous ideals prevailed in the end, in both examples you provided - no? Nobody pretends Nazism never happened - that would be Censorship. Instead, you can buy, find, read about Nazism - including Mein Kumpf and more. Creationism is not a dominating idea in the US either - nobody censored Creationism (even to this day you can find private schools that teach it!). Instead, Creationism was defeated by questioning…

The allied forces did not storm Omaha beach on D-Day to openly discuss Nazism, in case you weren't aware

Winning the war destroyed the Nazi regime - not the Nazi ideas.

That's not how ideas work... (see US Civil War and racism, as just one clear example)

Post reply on HN