81–90 of 94 posts
The far left extremists on Twitter are still there, spreading hate, and never got banned. Why so much attention to the far-right?
Marxism, cancel culture, environmental cultures (eg Just Stop Oil, Degrowth) etc all seem to focus on behaviour rather than the biological traits that attract far right attention.
I'm sure there are exceptions but being a dick isn't a protected class, so people attacking you for it aren't kicked off.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The paradox is used as an argumentative device for judging whether a tolerant and democratic society is possible (with liberal institutions ensuring intolerance doesn’t emerge) or if maintenance of tolerance would require an autocratic philosopher-king. The continual application of it to the online censorship debate makes little sense in light of its original rhetorical context. It is also constantly cited in policy…
The paradox of tolerance is not some narrow tool, it can be used in many contexts. In particular, it can be used to demonstrate that, if you want to exist in a society that has a coherent notion of "self-defense" in general, you must admit the existence of the paradox and the necessity of judging actions in the context of aggression or defense. To wit: killing someone is against the law, but killing someone who's try…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Nothing is black and white. People being rational is fiction. Advertisers force us to eat shit: the very existence of mass media depends on it. In functioning democracies, the government represents the people and thus anything it enforces is by order of its people. Only in crypto dictatorships does your argument hold. My solution then is to either evacuate or improve the quality of your representation.
Many people being gullible and herd-oriented doesn't equate to them being forced to consume products. I'm not forced to eat shit. Neither are you. If you disagree please reference the shit I'm being forced to eat, or products I'm being forced to buy. I'll then point out whether or not your statements have any standing.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Ever heard of Hitler? They let him talk, and talk and talk, it ended up with most of my ancestors dead. Some speech calls for violence and dehumanization against minorities, it should be banned.
Indeed, and Musk wants to ensure that such illegal speech is banned on Twitter. He has made a clear distinction that the limits of free speech should be governed by law as opposed to by opaque private interests.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/crime/darr... Never heard of this so looked it up. Dude had an argument with his ex while in a car, hit her a few times, she managed to escape, he drove into a parade some time later. The motive behind the attack is unknown. What does this have to do with the parent post?
Brooks was an extremist who regularly posted that “Hitler was right about the Jews” This has everything to do with the parent comment’s insinuation that political extremism is only a one way street. Also you conveniently left out the part where he murdered 6 people. “He drove into a parade some time later.” Unreal.
Edit: on further thought, no motive for the attack was established. This seems more like an act of random violence fueled by rage, rather than an ideological attack.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
People hold views, so what? Why can't we just accept that people have differing views, and just agree to disagree? Why do we have to force everyone to have the same belief system? People get angry when religious people proselytize, but other topics are okay to force on people? I have differing political/social/economic opinions than other people, but I have no desire to force my opinion on other people are make them…
Because we have enough empirical proof from last 100 years that right people at right time can convert your country into one where you can be sentenced to death, labour camp or any of those based on your ethnicity, religion, world view or even fact of wearing glasses.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The paradox of tolerance is not some narrow tool, it can be used in many contexts. In particular, it can be used to demonstrate that, if you want to exist in a society that has a coherent notion of "self-defense" in general, you must admit the existence of the paradox and the necessity of judging actions in the context of aggression or defense. To wit: killing someone is against the law, but killing someone who's try…
The difference is that speech, even unpopular, controversial, insulting, and dehumanizing speech, isn't violence. There is no legitimate claim to self-defense aside from direct threats to one's own life or property.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Why so much attention to the far-right? Because elite media is left-ish, and has great power to focus attention on some things but not on others.
> Because elite media is left-ish, and has great power to focus attention on some things but not on others. I wouldn't say "elite", just mainstream. And they're not left ish , just left - for a variety of reasons, many of them being valid. Such as respecting minorities, promoting equality, etc. I think the problem happens when some people go to the extreme - and this immediately causes uproar on the opposite side. Un…
Branding people left and right based on these qualities is lazy. There are people from both the left and right that exhibit these qualities. Also, there are racists that are left and right. I would even argue that “respecting majorities” is equally desired and exists for both left and right.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Ever heard of the Illusory truth effect? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Illusory_truth_effect
Perhaps something that should make you more skeptical of your beliefs, in the name of which you want to censor other beliefs.
The problem was, instead of just leaving our service after posting their disagreements, they stayed, because they were actually making money from their business with us. But they were so bitter about fee changes, they couldn't let it go. They came to dominate the forum discussion, not because they had anything useful to contribute other than their original disagreements, but because they had a lot of energy to post the same thing over and over.
It devolved into death threats against us, believe it or not, on a forum that we were publishing. How would you handle that in a censor-free environment?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Many people being gullible and herd-oriented doesn't equate to them being forced to consume products. I'm not forced to eat shit. Neither are you. If you disagree please reference the shit I'm being forced to eat, or products I'm being forced to buy. I'll then point out whether or not your statements have any standing.
Do I have to link you the scientific research that show that people who think they are not easily manipulated are one of the most easily manipulated groups, or can you manage it yourself?