361–370 of 378 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Why would you equate "young men" to "mass shooters" ? You literally took the quoted sentence out of context.
That's what we're talking about... It's in the title of the article.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think you're just proving my point. Justifications such as you proffer do nothing to convince me otherwise: We in the West are very xenophobic when it comes to assessing those nations we've destroyed in the last 20 years. We're not really being fair about such propositions as 'long term stability', really, when we do everything we can to make sure the region stays unstable...
If you're trying to project the future of the Middle East based solely off of knowledge of the last 20 years, you are very well out of your depth. The Middle East is a region of immense history--we can count back over 5000 years of recorded history--and people can nurse grievances accumulated over that span of time, especially as they are emphasized and deemphasized in mythmaking. Ever since the rise of nationalism i…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Did the New Yorker plagiarize that last sentence from the Atlanitc? It's in both of your excerpts, almost identically.
I found this fascinating so did a bit of research: Both the National Review article and this piece ( https://www.indexoncensorship.org/2012/04/words-and-deeds/ ) by Flemming Rose credit Alan Borovoy for having been the original author of that passage (in his 1988 book When Freedoms Collide: The Case for Civil Liberties). The New Yorker article is based on Bob Mankoff interviewing Flemming Rose and it looks like Flemm…
The theory seems to be that white supremacists just naturally wish to commit violent hate crimes and that white supremacists use 8chan to indoctrinate more followers. What if it turns out that white supremacists primary wish is to have their arguments heard by society, but society has instead cast them out and refuses to let them post elsewhere so they can only post on 8chan, and that some of them, mentally unstable,…
The thing is, their argument is often not coherent or unfunded and once public, will be shown wrong pretty quickly (sadly not always with the right words or the right ways) and they'll feel attacked because of that.
On theses platforms, that doesn't happen, people are cheering them, they feel right, they feel it's the correct way of thinking. Thus they go there instead because it feel good.
The best example is r/the_donald banning any opposite way of thinking.
They are also slowly self-justifying isolating themselve from others, accusing others of manipulations, of fake news, using conspiration theories to ignore facts, accusing people of "concern trolling", etc...
That's sadly quite hard to fix and you'll need quite a b it of motivation and original thinking to be able to go beyond all theses walls they build arround themselves to protect their hatred and their little communities.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
A global ban for promoting genocide or murder doesn't seem too complicated
It's still more work, because some people will get upset that they're not allowed to promote genocide. It still has edge cases (I've seen some hairy examples from Facebook moderation guidelines). It's also still more of a free speech issue than deleting spam is. That doesn't mean such a ban would be bad, but it is complicated, and someone who doesn't like genocide might still not want it.
Moderating spam is easier. Apparently it's hard to tell between "we should kill these people" and "these people are being killed" due to a language barrier sometimes, and it's hard to automate.
But wow. You all think "let's kill these people" somehow has more value than "buy my shit/here is a malware link", nice. downboat away
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The moment that sharing weakness actually turns women on and attracts them sexually, is the moment that the societal discouragement of weakness in men will evaporate.
You say that as if it's not males enforcing stereotypical toxic behaviour.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> You start by joking that you are a jew-hating nazi and then after a while you become an actual jew-hating nazi. How does that work psychologically? I think that's just a reaction of the mind to repeated exposure. There was an article on the work of Facebook contractors who are responsible for moderating content: one of the interviewees confessed that they ended up unintentionally internalizing/accepting the tin-foi…
> My theory is you don't even have to say it jokingly, you just have to see it over and over again, and the mind will learn by rote - using the same underlying hardware as spaced repetition. If that were true, all of HN would be Rust evangelists and/or users of pure functional programming languages.
The theory seems to be that white supremacists just naturally wish to commit violent hate crimes and that white supremacists use 8chan to indoctrinate more followers. What if it turns out that white supremacists primary wish is to have their arguments heard by society, but society has instead cast them out and refuses to let them post elsewhere so they can only post on 8chan, and that some of them, mentally unstable,…
> What if it turns out that white supremacists primary wish is to have their arguments heard by society, but society has instead cast them out and refuses to let them post elsewhere so they can only post on 8chan, and that some of them, mentally unstable, react to being outcast in extreme ways? The thing is, their argument is often not coherent or unfunded and once public, will be shown wrong pretty quickly (sadly no…
I think if they self-select to group with their own kind they radicalize each other. But there is not much we can do about that because no matter how many forums get shut down another one will pop up. The community itself doesn't go away just because a platform goes away, that just aggravates them.
The best opportunity we have to help normalize them is while they are on public platforms like twitter, youtube and facebook. Unfortunately those platforms have chosen to ban accounts rather than just censor and throttle content (for reasons that make perfect commercial sense). And good-faith statements of bad ideas are not being engaged with because they get censored as well (obviously bad faith trolling and memes don't invite engagement).
IMHO the best response is to engage where engagement is invited (everyone is edified by such discussions), censor where it isn't invited and where it is otherwise necessary to censor, throttle the ability of repeat offenders to post... but never perma-ban accounts.
In summary I guess my point is this: We can't stop them from choosing to go into a dark corner, but we can stop pushing them there.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I suspect it's simply that most jew-hating etc. jokes are unmotivated unless you hate jews. If you don't hate jews you find the jokes unfunny and tedious and stop browsing, and if you do you join in. The origins of 8/4chan barely matter.
This isn't true, mocking other cultures is very common and accepted in many parts of the world. In Sweden we have entire books full of jokes on how stupid Norwegians are and they have their own about stupid Swedes. And no, we don't hate each other. Anyhow, we stopped joking about Jews because it attracts racists and extremists, not because joking about groups isn't funny.
A focus on the mediums through which these shooters express their views misses the forest for the trees, which is that this is fundamentally a political problem. There is an ascendant political ideology in the United States, and in the West more broadly, that is rooted in a fear that White supremacy is being eroded by immigration and demographic change, and that violence against minority populations is an acceptable…
- For Trump to support neo-nazis he doesn't even need to praise them (even though he does it anyway), just selectively unenforce their actions. Inaction can be a political statement.