Live data from Hacker News

Alt-Right Pipeline

en.wikipedia.org

31–40 of 61 posts

Re: Alt-Right Pipeline

#31

As someone who Bardfinn would likely call alt right (i think my fanatic support of Israel/Jews makes that untrue) I’m happy to answer questions. Basically nothing in this wiki page is accurate.

"Volume of fire has an accuracy all its own."--U.S. Marine

In the propaganda war, substance is irrelevant and repetition is key.

At some point, society is going to heave a collective sigh and thumb its nose at all of these online scandal-peddlers.

It's all a colossal farce, and cannot implode quickly enough, on the Left of Right.

Re: Alt-Right Pipeline

#32

Article needs some sort of lock. Ripe for vandalism.

But enough about Wikipedia in general. Notwithstanding pure science/math topics, one is safe to assume anything there is at least airbrushed, if not pure propaganda.

Re: Alt-Right Pipeline

#33
post #29
post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Should we deplatform people we don’t agree with?

If we own the platform, yes, we should (and do) have the right to do just that. We can also kick people out of our house we don't agree with, and businesses can refuse service to people they don't agree with. The news doesn't have to print everything it's given. TV stations don't have to broadcast every tape that comes in the mail. The alternative is to be forced to platform people you don't agree with, and who may e…

I did not speak about forcing anyone to do anything, but rather about what would be the right thing to do. Could you steel-man this idea instead?

Re: Alt-Right Pipeline

#35
post #23

This article uses terms that de-legitimize certain types of discourse, such as "radicalization", "extremist figures," "hate speech" and "misinformation." Who decides whether the theory that COVID-19 originated in a Chinese lab is a scientific hypothesis to be tested, or "misinformation" to be suppressed? Who decides that Jordan Peterson is an "extremist figure" but RuPaul is not? Why are (generally left-leaning) peop…

It's pretty simple. If the ideas being presented, ad nauseam, bring undue harm to other people, the left is going to want to take a step back.

The lab origin theory itself is not harmful, but the way it was presented by the right absolutely was. The base is FAR more prone to knee-jerk violence than the left. To many of them, china lab leak = Chinese people should be physically attacked. The knee-jerk suppression of discussion was caused by the knee-jerk violence.

Jon Stewart could talk about it because he argued in good faith. Tucker Carlson was very obviously looking to rile up the base knowing damn well the logical leaps they would make.

Re: Alt-Right Pipeline

#37
post #8
post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

He's given people like Alex Jones and Gavin McInnes a platform—something that McInnes himself (for example) has said directly helped recruitment to the Proud Boys.

Oh no! Recruitment to a group led by an Afro-Cuban that opposed the organized street violence across our nation, from over a billion dollars in arson damage to dozens of murders (including Antonio Mays Jr and David Dorne)?!?!? Say it isn’t so!

> McInnes is open about his glorification of violence. In a speech, he described a clash with Antifa outside a talk he gave at NYU last year: “My guys are left to fight. And here’s the crucial part: We do. And we beat the crap out of them.” He related what a Proud Boy who got arrested told him afterward: “It was really, really fun.” According to McInnes: “Violence doesn’t feel good. Justified violence feels great. And fighting solves everything.”

https://www.nationalreview.com/2018/10/gavin-mcinnes-proud-b...

Re: Alt-Right Pipeline

#38
post #35
post #23

This article uses terms that de-legitimize certain types of discourse, such as "radicalization", "extremist figures," "hate speech" and "misinformation." Who decides whether the theory that COVID-19 originated in a Chinese lab is a scientific hypothesis to be tested, or "misinformation" to be suppressed? Who decides that Jordan Peterson is an "extremist figure" but RuPaul is not? Why are (generally left-leaning) peop…

It's pretty simple. If the ideas being presented, ad nauseam, bring undue harm to other people, the left is going to want to take a step back. The lab origin theory itself is not harmful, but the way it was presented by the right absolutely was. The base is FAR more prone to knee-jerk violence than the left. To many of them, china lab leak = Chinese people should be physically attacked. The knee-jerk suppression of d…

Is there any proof of any significant number of people justifying violence towards the Chinese because of the lab leak theory?

It takes many logical leaps. First, one has to believe the lab leak happened, which we can’t say with certainty — there is a lot of circumstantial and weak evidence on both sides, it is very speculative. Secondly, one would need to believe there is culpability (it was not an accident). Thirdly, one would have to believe that all Chinese are collectively culpable, which alone is pretty ridiculous. And one more logical leap is necessary to agree that random violence would constitute appropriate justice (people generally feel that even when criminals are unduly murdered, this does not make things equitable for the harmed party).

These leaps already require a very radicalized audience. I don’t believe this will work to radicalize a substantial number of people.

And even putting all of that aside, calls for violence are outside social norms and considered hate speech. The problem is not discussing the lab leak theory, it’s doing so outside the social norms. If we say that lab leak discussion is hate speech, that is simply incorrect.

Re: Alt-Right Pipeline

#39
post #33
post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If we own the platform, yes, we should (and do) have the right to do just that. We can also kick people out of our house we don't agree with, and businesses can refuse service to people they don't agree with. The news doesn't have to print everything it's given. TV stations don't have to broadcast every tape that comes in the mail. The alternative is to be forced to platform people you don't agree with, and who may e…

I did not speak about forcing anyone to do anything, but rather about what would be the right thing to do. Could you steel-man this idea instead?

I don't believe there is an objectively right thing to do. Inherent in the right to free speech is the right to allow dangerous speech to spread - speech isn't value neutral. It balances against the right of association - the right to speak is not de facto a right to be heard on all platforms. Choosing where to draw the line is a matter of personal preference.

Personally, I believe even reprehensible people have the right to speak, congregate and spread their ideas, but also that society has a moral duty to prevent the spread of harmful speech even in the name of free speech (see the paradox of tolerance,) and they aren't entitled to an arbitrarily large platform. Of course such a position is fraught with the potential for abuse, since the definitions for "harmful" and "useful" speech are arbitrary (speech against slavery was considered harmful at one point of course.) but I still think this position is preferable to the alternatives.

Re: Alt-Right Pipeline

#40
post #23

This article uses terms that de-legitimize certain types of discourse, such as "radicalization", "extremist figures," "hate speech" and "misinformation." Who decides whether the theory that COVID-19 originated in a Chinese lab is a scientific hypothesis to be tested, or "misinformation" to be suppressed? Who decides that Jordan Peterson is an "extremist figure" but RuPaul is not? Why are (generally left-leaning) peop…

It's effectively a conspiracy theory. A neutral point of view would just be to not have the article.
Post reply on HN