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

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

#841

Post by ctdonath » Sun, Mar 14, 2021, 3:24 AM UTC

matthewmacleod wrote: post #240

ctdonath wrote: post #232

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yup. Try saying, with genuine honest neutrality, “all lives matter”, “it’s ok to be white”, or “capitalism doesn’t care about race/gender” and see what happens.

All three of these phrases are political slogans. They are inherently associated with a set of political views, because they exist specifically to oppose another set of views and slogans. It’s unreasonable to echo a political slogan in public and then complain that people don’t assume your neutrality. You cannot say “it’s okay to be white” and expect others to consider it neutral, in much the same way that you can’t…

Political only insofar as they call out the disingenuous nature of their opponents' unopposable slogans. I absolutely can, and do, say "it's okay to be white" because there should be absolutely nothing inherently & politically wrong with my skin color - and the phrase was developed to bely the imputed virtue of those who reveal their true stance by freaking out over it.

Do black lives matter? absolutely, of course. Is it okay for me to be white? why is your response to berate me for saying so?

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

#842

Post by ctdonath » Sun, Mar 14, 2021, 3:27 AM UTC

watwut wrote: post #273

TeMPOraL wrote: post #242

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's the other way around: these phrases are neutral observations and reasonable opinions, perhaps reasonable reactions to insanity of well-known political slogans - importantly, it's something a random person can come up independently, without reading the exact words first. But at some point, these phrases rapidly become politicized, and this catches a lot of people off guard. You voice your thoughts, fully expectin…

There was no "all lives matter" until there was "black lives matter" and people wanted to say they don't like the message. It is quite dishonest to claim that this phrase is neutral and not a political slogan.

There was no "all lives matter" until there was "black lives matter" and people wanted to say they don't like the message.

People wanted to say they don't like being left out of the message.

Nobody seriously opposed "black lives matter", but noticed that proponents of that phrase got vicious when faced with "all lives matter"; the latter is not a political slogan, but a litmus test for racism.

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

#843

Post by ctdonath » Sun, Mar 14, 2021, 3:35 AM UTC

DanHulton wrote: post #252

ctdonath wrote: post #232

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yup. Try saying, with genuine honest neutrality, “all lives matter”, “it’s ok to be white”, or “capitalism doesn’t care about race/gender” and see what happens.

Because there is no "genuine honest neutrality" behind those phrases. They're shibboleths. They're commonly understood slogans, used to indicate what side you're on (or at least what side you're opposed to) while SOUNDING innocent. The people who know, will KNOW what you mean when you say them. (And in the incredibly unlikely situation where you'd somehow been exposed to enough of the discourse to come up with these…

Shibboleths? Those phrases are intended to identify unifying intent vs deception intending division. I agree "black lives matter"; can you agree "all lives matter" and "it's OK to be white" and thus support us working together for mutual betterment? or will you viciously attack the phrases, belying your intent to divide us?

Is a phrase a "shibboleth" when intended to promote peace, unity, and mutual aid?

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

#844

Post by ctdonath » Sun, Mar 14, 2021, 3:39 AM UTC

mindcandy wrote: post #305

lighttannotwite wrote: post #279

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> they're still terrible concepts that have been roundly denounced on their own merits Hol' up, "it is ok to be white," is a terrible concept denounced on its own merits? Lol ok It's a good thing that under Critical Theory, since race is a social construction (that's why Black is supposed to be capitalized, because it refers to the construction, not the color) there's no reason besides being "roundly denounced" (whic…

You are falling into the trap that was explicitly set up by trolls. If it was not well known to be explicitly set up by trolls, "it is ok to be white” would be a fine, boring statement. But, it has been established that chan trolls came together to figure out a slogan that they could use to stir up heated arguments exactly like you are making. They settled on "it is ok to be white" and started using it to troll peopl…

The phrase was set up by trolls explicitly to root out those who do not, after all, use corresponding phrases in good faith (and once rooted out, then played). It absolutely should be a fine, boring statement - and its brilliance is that it's not the trolls that make it a trap, but those who choose to fight it.

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

#845

Post by claudiawerner » Sun, Mar 14, 2021, 3:55 AM UTC

dbsmith83 wrote: post #840

vinay427 wrote: post #777

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> you can't even discuss changes to the laws. This is a type of speech, and there's no reason all speech should be regulated uniformly, just as speech and actions should presumably not be regulated uniformly. We could just prevent actions without bothering with speech at all, but (for instance) it seems similarly doable to ban certain forms of speech that cause unreasonable harm while leaving other forms alone. An ar…

> ... but (for instance) it seems similarly doable to ban certain forms of speech that cause unreasonable harm while leaving other forms alone. Except that the article is dedicated to explaining why it's not doable and is a bad idea in general

The article at best provides some counter-examples, it does not refute the case in general, especially when other commenters in this thread have pointed out counter-counter examples such as in West Germany. The article also does a pretty poor job of the examples it describes; for example, it assumes that the rise in FN is on the backs of those who share the ideas targeted by anti-hate-speech laws, but to support FN one need not have any of the racist views the laws target. The article only shows that the laws have failed to target right-wing thought; it does not speak to their ability to target the spread of far-right ideas which they were designed to do.

The article does not address whether it's a bad idea, rather its entire premise is built upon the fact that whether it's a good or bad idea is preceeded by a question of whether it works. Several commenters in this thread have pointed out that it does work, and is used to this day, from China's authoritarian implementation to the implementation at other points in history.

I think it's reasonable to make the statement: assuming that it does work (and maybe the article is correct - perhaps it doesn't work), would it still be a good idea? What number of people would it need to work on to be a good idea?

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

#846

Post by sagichmal » Sun, Mar 14, 2021, 4:50 AM UTC

freebuju wrote: post #76

sagichmal wrote: post #14

Eliminate? No. Reduce to the point of practical irrelevance? Yep. Deplatforming works.

Deplatforming solves a problem. And only temporarily in the abundance of VPN & encrypted technologies. IMO it makes things even worse since these groups will congregate in secret much further away from the public eye where they can perpetuate unbalanced and unhealthy ideas.

> Deplatforming solves a problem.

Yep!

> IMO it makes things even worse since these groups will congregate in secret much further away from the public eye where they can perpetuate unbalanced and unhealthy ideas.

The whole point of deplatforming is to prevent those stupid ideas from having a general audience. Sunlight is not always the best disinfectant.

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

#847

Post by sagichmal » Sun, Mar 14, 2021, 4:56 AM UTC

elastolin wrote: post #546

bitdizzy wrote: post #255

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, obviously it would not be okay. What point are you trying to make?

So, deplatforming (silencing) a group is okay, but doing the same for other group is not okay based on some arbitrary criteria.

> So, deplatforming (silencing) a group is okay, but doing the same for other group is not okay based on some arbitrary criteria.

This is such a lazy argument, because it's trivially defeated. Yes. Exactly this. In the same way that e.g. jailing one group (the guilty) is okay, but doing the same for another group (the innocent) is not okay.

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

#848

Post by alacombe » Sun, Mar 14, 2021, 4:57 AM UTC

soared wrote: post #668

alacombe wrote: post #489

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"moderation" is censorship.

Incorrect. If I spam a link to my personal blog on hn the moderator or community will flag/kill them. That is not censorship.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Censorship

Censorship is the suppression of speech, public communication, or other information.

"moderation" fits within that definition.

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

#849

Post by sagichmal » Sun, Mar 14, 2021, 4:58 AM UTC

elastolin wrote: post #836

bitdizzy wrote: post #827

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It is entirely and issue of the means of communication being concentrated into the hands of a few powerful organizations, like its been since the radio was captured by capitalist regulation. > Who the fuck decides? Everyone decides norms in the small bubble around them. When people organize their influence grows too. Some people have too much power. Some people should never have power, like nazis. A lot of the argume…

> Some people should never have power, like nazis. That's exactly what I'm arguing against. That's just your opinion and you treat it like some universal axiom. Same way you treat 'Holocaust deniers' as some kind of monstrous apparitions. You may not agree, that's all. It's people like you that inspire me to counteract this trend with full force.

> That's just your opinion and you treat it like some universal axiom.

It's OK that some things involve subjective judgment.

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

#850

Post by sagichmal » Sun, Mar 14, 2021, 5:00 AM UTC

alacombe wrote: post #499

sagichmal wrote: post #14

Eliminate? No. Reduce to the point of practical irrelevance? Yep. Deplatforming works.

Only "works" because those community becomes underground and more radicalized.

Great. Let them do that. The important thing is that they're not getting their message in front of whoever happens to be scrolling the Reddit front page. That's enormously more harmful.