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

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

#791

Post by clusterfish » Sat, Mar 13, 2021, 1:08 AM UTC

js8 wrote: post #283

clusterfish wrote: post #219

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They're the same racists on the left and the right extremes. It's just, we had decades of wars and (justified) propaganda that thoroughly discredited fascism and their style of racism so it's easy to see how the right extremes is bad. What the extreme left is doing on the other hand is a more modern variation of racism and totalitarianism. It's ostensibly driven by noble concepts like social justice but in reality de…

You didn't really answer GP's question, can you be a little more specific about which groups and individuals you perceive as left-extremist? I mean, people write a lot of crap on the Internet. It seems to me that you chose to perceive these people as leftist, rather than them proving it by participating in some kind of leftist organization or at least producing some left-leaning writing.

Come on, I even gave you specific examples of specific issues that are widely recognized to be leftist. Denying it is like denying that anti-black racism is a predominantly right wing extreme.

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

#792

Post by websites2323 » Sat, Mar 13, 2021, 1:10 AM UTC

DC1350 wrote: post #642

websites2323 wrote: post #631

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What trans rhetoric is homophobic?

Like the idea that a homosexual can be attracted to an opposite sexed person, the term “genital preference”, that a gender non-conforming boy might actually be a girl, etc. Essentially, the idea that a person could be attracted to the body of the sex they aren’t attracted to is the same idea behind conversion therapy. Anecdotally, I’ve spent way too much time trying to change my “genital preference” for me to think i…

These ideas don’t point towards any animosity towards homosexuals, just a theory about how they might be attracted to trans people. Not really comparable to conversion therapy — no one is forcing you to date a trans man.

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

#793

Post by wishinghand » Sat, Mar 13, 2021, 1:20 AM UTC

throwaway53453 wrote: post #324

AshWolfy wrote: post #317

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> right-wing extremists have killed 329 victims in the last 25 years, while antifa members haven't killed any https://www.businessinsider.com/right-wing-extremists-kill-3...

> while antifa members haven't killed any https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Killings_of_Aaron_Danielson_an... Yesterday: https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/imez-wrigh... Edit: This just in! https://twitter.com/MrAndyNgo/status/1370281113239891969 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hEWsJ8SvlMY Antifa are clearly one of the most violent organisations active today. Borderline terrorists (= "action or threat desi…

In that first Wikipedia link, it mentions that Danielson's killing is the first time an anti-fascist has been charged wit homicide in 26 years. Not exactly a ringing endorsement for the "crown of most violent organization active today."

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

#794

Post by [deleted] » Sat, Mar 13, 2021, 1:24 AM UTC

claudiawerner wrote: post #747

Lammy wrote: post #742

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

The fact that speech can be distinguished from action does not in itself provide a reason to prioritize speech over action. Further, speech and action share a number of commonalities that there are good arguments made (by Susan Brison and Frederick Schauer, for instance) that the categorical difference between them rests on a philosophical error.

[deleted]

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

#795

Post by throwaway212135 » Sat, Mar 13, 2021, 1:24 AM UTC

claudiawerner wrote: post #717

bleah1000 wrote: post #530

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

>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…

You Canadians are really warped. Here is an idea. Quit meddling in American politics and culture. You have enough to worry about in your own country.

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

#796

Post by SkipperCat » Sat, Mar 13, 2021, 1:25 AM UTC

anonymouswacker wrote: post #474

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 the mainstream thinking in the US, and why everything is rapidly going to shit. There is no "we" giving people a microphone -- it is a select few oligarchs who wield exceptional control to take away the voice of people whose views run counter to their and their cronies' interests. There is no democracy, representation, or transparency. The coming antithesis will be bypassing the control of the few on the voic…

I agree.

It's a shame that the "public square" became privately owned. Google/Twitter/Facebook/etc all have advertisers to answer to and they'll pull the plug on someone not by any fair means of measure but how it affect their public image (and really their bottom line.

Honestly, I'd rather the "deplorables" do their thing in public rather than in their private channels. At least in public they'd have to defend their ideas against the general public and I do think their ideas would not hold muster.

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

#797

Post by Viliam1234 » Sat, Mar 13, 2021, 1:29 AM UTC

hef19898 wrote: post #681

Viliam1234 wrote: post #659

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> To be intolerant against intolerance is at the heart of any stable, decent, livable society. I agree; in the name of preserving social order, SJWs should all be thrown in jails. Just kidding... but that's what the article is talking about. You can make strict laws (or social norms) against "intolerance", and someone else will be happy you handed them a powerful weapon they can use against you. Do your political opp…

If almost 80 years of havinthese laws in basically every European democracy doesn't proof that these laws aren't miss used, I don't know what can. And no, denying people service, jobs and social security based on color, religion sex or whatnot is not the same as fighting for people to have these rights. Because the former takes away rights, while the latter grants rights without anybody else loosing anything.

Of course, if all your side ever does is "fighting for people to have these rights, without anybody else loosing anything", then you are the good guys.

Do you honestly believe this is a truthful description of reality?

Do you believe your opponents would also agree with this description (that is, if they only could abstain from lying for a moment, e.g. if you would give them a truth serum)?

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

#798

Post by airhead969 » Sat, Mar 13, 2021, 1:32 AM UTC

claudiawerner wrote: post #746

airhead969 wrote: post #733

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

>Because your neighbor's problem eventually becomes your problem. This is an argument for doing something , not necessarily for putting a burden on individuals to counter extremist and murderous ideology - especially those who are most likely to be targeted by it. It may be a moral imperative, but moral imperatives really are sensetive to a variety of individual circumstances to exercise, because they only work by wa…

Let's not confuse or conflate the bounds of in-person speech, with printed or online content. These differ slightly.

> Similarly, the fact that a hate speech law can be abused is not a good argument; plenty of laws can be abused, including, say, anti-terrorism laws.

False equivalency, red herring, and two wrongs don't make a right. Laws can be written across a continuum of vagueness and precision. Laws must be continually updated and oversight assured so that policy underpinning is implemented in good faith and appropriately. Crafting particular words for a law alone is insufficient to accomplish the presupposed objectives. The real world doesn't work like that.

> What makes you think the mentors will be any less susceptible to radicalization than the people they are mentoring?

Did your professor allow this kind of crap to fly?

> This is an argument for doing something

You proved my point for me. Tragedy of the Commons makes everyone's responsibility no one's responsibility. No one else is likely to do something just because you talk about it but don't walk the walk. "Be the change you seek" because waiting for Godot is a terrible idea. Take ownership yourself and do it.

> Debate does nothing for the first category.

I suggest taking another look at history [0]; ethos, pathos, and logos; and, finally, hate deradicalizers, often former believers.

0: Rhetoric was a popular form of live entertainment for centuries, if not more. "The Most Famous Man in America: The Biography of Henry Ward Beecher" - Derby Applegate (2006) re: touring abolitionism speech performer, and his sister's book likely being one of the final proverbial straws that broke the camel's back regarding the Civil War.

Saudi Arabia, regardless of many other concerns in the Kingdom, has an entire department in the MoI that has processed thousands of now former Jihadi's. [1]

1: https://www.cfr.org/expert-brief/saudi-deradicalization-expe...

Dereck Black changed his mind after 2 years of Shibbat dinners. [2]

2: https://bunewsservice.com/can-a-white-supremacist-be-deradic...

> speeches, texts, videos, music, etc.

content

> hobble the spread of their ideas

Cartoons of Muhammed plus the Quran is better than burning and banning the Quran, because that reinforces an adversarial and underground dynamic rather than dialogue. Who decides which ideas are "good" or "bad?" You? Verizon? Dept of Safe Ideas? Censorship/hobbling powers never end well. "Absolute power..."

I think I'm done here because you've stopped listening and went off into the weeds rather than be honest.

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

#799

Post by DC1350 » Sat, Mar 13, 2021, 1:34 AM UTC

websites2323 wrote: post #792

DC1350 wrote: post #642

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Like the idea that a homosexual can be attracted to an opposite sexed person, the term “genital preference”, that a gender non-conforming boy might actually be a girl, etc. Essentially, the idea that a person could be attracted to the body of the sex they aren’t attracted to is the same idea behind conversion therapy. Anecdotally, I’ve spent way too much time trying to change my “genital preference” for me to think i…

These ideas don’t point towards any animosity towards homosexuals, just a theory about how they might be attracted to trans people. Not really comparable to conversion therapy — no one is forcing you to date a trans man.

Sorry but there is a problem with the idea that I could like pussy if I just put my mind to it

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

#800

Post by Frondo » Sat, Mar 13, 2021, 1:35 AM UTC

closeparen wrote: post #643

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.

Today Dr. Seuss is hate speech. Tomorrow Dr. Seuss apologia will be hate speech. Even from the perspective that this is progress, it’s very fast progress. Today’s white supremacists are last week’s liberals who didn’t update their opinions fast enough.

Dr Seuss isn't hate speech, there are a few racist caricatures in a few of his books, that the owners have stopped printing.

A few private platforms have stopped selling those books -- not all of them, neither all platforms nor books.

You can still find those books, you just won't be able to buy official reprints from the copyright holder.

I am not sure where you'll draw the line if you insist that copyright holders continue to issue reprints or if you insist that private platforms continue to offer trade in things they don't want on their platforms.

Would that rule apply to ebay, but not a physical retail store where space is at a premium and people have to make choices about what not to sell every day? And would that rule compel ebay to sell nazi memorabilia or pre-American civil war slave memorabilia (which, afaik, they do not sell)?

The Seuss stuff is something I really can't wrap my head around, because what is it people really want? Just the estate to be compelled to keep printing and selling them, that ebay be compelled to keep allowing them to be sold?

Or some broader rule where any copyright holder of some (contemporarily) objectionable material be compelled to keep offering it, and every store be compelled to keep trading in it? All of those put limits on people's freedoms to choose in ways that make me uncomfortable.