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

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

#451

Post by Floegipoky » Fri, Mar 12, 2021, 5:43 PM UTC

clusterfish wrote: post #28

dmingod666 wrote: post #17

My reading from the outside is, the left needs to realize (I'm sure it applies to the right equally as well) that scolding people into guilt is not a viable approach to affect action or to change perceptions when you're dealing with adults. Neither does boxing people into this, that and that category do any good. Like if all you want to do is dehumanize those guys so you can happily insult / hurt them without hurting…

I think the extremes, both left and right, have realized that their greatest enemy is not the other extreme, but the masses in between. A group that has the numbers, with mild views that can dilute your message with reasonable doubt, challenge certain aspects of your extreme yet be broadly acceptable to a much wider audience including those tending towards your side – that's poision for an extremist. Therefore, their…

"I have almost reached the regrettable conclusion that the Negro's great stumbling block in his stride toward freedom is not the White Citizen's Counciler or the Ku Klux Klanner, but the white moderate, who is more devoted to ‘order’ than to justice; who prefers a negative peace which is the absence of tension to a positive peace which is the presence of justice; who constantly says: ‘I agree with you in the goal you seek, but I cannot agree with your methods of direct action’; who paternalistically believes he can set the timetable for another man's freedom; who lives by a mythical concept of time and who constantly advises the Negro to wait for a ‘more convenient season.’” - Dr. King, 1963

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

#452

Post by himinlomax » Fri, Mar 12, 2021, 5:43 PM UTC

dmingod666 wrote: post #17

My reading from the outside is, the left needs to realize (I'm sure it applies to the right equally as well) that scolding people into guilt is not a viable approach to affect action or to change perceptions when you're dealing with adults. Neither does boxing people into this, that and that category do any good. Like if all you want to do is dehumanize those guys so you can happily insult / hurt them without hurting…

I make the distinction between anti-racism and anti-racist. If you're anti-racism, you want to reduce racism and that involves talking to people who are racist to fix the problem. If you're anti-racist, you just want to beat someone up and use racism as an excuse.

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

#453

Post by curiousgeorgio » Fri, Mar 12, 2021, 5:43 PM UTC

hef19898 wrote: post #170

curiousgeorgio wrote: post #144

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> And of the two sides, only one is actively trying to restrict the freedom of people based on skin, religion and sex. Only one side is arguing for violence against weaker people, like fugitives and migrants. I sincerely don't think either of the two sides is advocating for those things (ignoring a very few extremists - on both sides - with malicious intent, who don't represent the majority). I do see those issues me…

The AfD called to shoot migrants at the EU border. They retreated to the "only one person's personal opinion" after a harsh backlash. QAnon representatives are calling for the murder of Democrats. The same group advocates for brutal treatment of migrants, restrictions of freedom of choice for women, direct violence against muslims. I don't see any of this on the left side of the political spectrum. Also, when someone…

I appreciate you proving my point about extremist outliers, the ones who don't represent the majority of either side, yet receive all the media attention (and association with whichever side is currently being vilified).

> when someone in a group voices radical opinions and calls for violence it represents the groups view when said group is not distancing itself from these views

When "the other side" has an interest in associating you with extremists and refuses to listen to you repeatedly denounce the actions of those extremists, there's nothing you can do to convince them otherwise. Again, the demagoguery and parallels to the McCarthy era are troubling.

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

#454

Post by T-hawk » Fri, Mar 12, 2021, 5:44 PM UTC

Lammy wrote: post #383

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…

You're still using subjective terms like "extremism" in an objective way that the people on the receiving end of that label may not agree with or appreciate.

This is a major and serious point. A large part of the discourse has become slapping the "extremist" label on every dissenting argument from the other side, regardless of where the position actually is.

If you ban extremist speech, then what you've done is create incentive to label everything as extremist.

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

#455

Post by mlthoughts2018 » Fri, Mar 12, 2021, 5:44 PM UTC

morpheos137 wrote: post #446

mlthoughts2018 wrote: post #393

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Thinking it is an unjustified proportion seems exceedingly racist on your part. The equivalency between proportion of attention paid to harmed groups and size of the group, especially for groups as large as ~12%, is inherently quite an extreme racist stance to take. I’m sure you wouldn’t agree, but that’s exactly the problem. As long as we’ve got people acting like NPR’s current amount of coverage including racial an…

In a world where resources including time are scarce there is something to be gained from allocating time toward beneficial activities. I got to stop interacting with this thread now to practice what I preach.

That’s a pretty sickening way to justify racism and justify turning a blind eye toward helping harmed groups. I hope nobody ever treats your problems that way so you don’t have to experience the side-effects of the attitude you’re inflicting on others.

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

#456

Post by tablespoon » Fri, Mar 12, 2021, 5:45 PM UTC

fatsdomino001 wrote: post #439

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…

"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." This is such a terrible idea. All this accomplishes is causing extremists to find echo chambers where they will never actually know what they're doing is wrong. It's much better to keep extremists in mainstream platform…

>> "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."

> This is such a terrible idea. All this accomplishes is causing extremists to find echo chambers where they will never actually know what they're doing is wrong. It's much better to keep extremists in mainstream platforms so they can be called out and atleast informed that they are wrong. Your solution is totally backwards and accomplishes the opposite of what you're hoping for.

It's not that simple:

1. It's totally believable that someone might follow a neo-Nazi on twitter, if the neo-Nazi avoids Nazi iconography and mainly tweets about Nazi-adjacent topics, but have second thoughts about joining an actual neo-Nazi website.

Not all extremists will seek out a fringe echo chamber. Some will, but others will not. The result is likely one where the most-extreme core gets separated from its recruitment opportunities, disrupting the first step in the recruitment funnel. That core may get more extreme in its echo chamber, but its overall movement could end up being smaller and weaker.

2. Counterintuitively, people tend to dig in to their existing beliefs when they're "called out." Also, I'm sure every neo-Nazi has been informed many, many times that they're wrong. Extremism is not a problem of lack of information.

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

#457

Post by bhupy » Fri, Mar 12, 2021, 5:47 PM UTC

ThrowawayR2 wrote: post #346

benchaney wrote: post #320

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Is there any actual evidence that the paradox of tolerance is correct? I suspect people stopped taking it seriously (and mentioning it in discussions on speech) because it’s advocates always seem to expect everyone to take it on faith, instead of providing a real argument to support their claims.

> " Is there any actual evidence that the paradox of tolerance is correct? " Nope, it's just a sound bite that people latched on to that supports their pre-existing beliefs, even though it's just one philosopher's opinion. Despite the fact that they're appealing to Popper's authority, most people using can't even name the book that Popper wrote that in, let alone any of his other philosophical stances. That's why I s…

Ironically, I could even cite Popper's Paradox of Tolerance as itself problematic: the more I tolerate the use of that philosophical argument, the more likely we are to lose the ability to freely express ourselves, therefore we ought to ban its use.

It's a circular argument that assumes its premise is correct a priori without any proof.

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

#458

Post by AnthonyMouse » Fri, Mar 12, 2021, 5:47 PM UTC

matthewmacleod wrote: post #260

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…

That's only true in the sense that every phrase can be a "neutral observation" if you choose to ignore the context in which it is used and the associations it has. It's the same concept as dogwhistling at its core. Like the terms "urban", or "big government", or "states' rights", or "law and order". Completely "neutral phrases" that are often used to communicate a hidden message with plausible deniability. I mean aft…

The other side of this is that opponents always try to create negative associations for whatever they oppose.

So then someone whose politics favors authoritarianism and centralization will propose some federal power grab, opponents will make arguments favoring local control and the authoritarians will try to tar them with slavery and Jim Crow even if the subject is unrelated, e.g. whether the FDA should be overruling the states on whether or not to ban a thing in their state.

It's essentially an attempt to prevent anyone from taking the neutral position by making an accusation of guilt by association. Nazis are bad, Nazis built roads, therefore roads are bad.

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

#459

Post by smaryjerry » Fri, Mar 12, 2021, 5:49 PM UTC

GVIrish wrote: post #241

smaryjerry wrote: post #231

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Opinions are biased and specific people and programs are biased on Fox News and many other channels, but to be a journalist you literally have to correct false statements you make. This makes Fox News as reliable as all other stations. People often post memes about Fox News or CNN saying something wildly stupid but don’t realize they are posting a literal opinion from an opinion show not news from a news show.

> but to be a journalist you literally have to correct false statements you make What? No, you absolutely do not have to correct false statements you make to be a journalist. Reputable publications post retractions and clarifications because that is how they maintain their reputation, but it is in no way a requirement.

You actually do or you can lose your license to broadcast.

The FCC is prohibited by law from engaging in censorship or infringing on First Amendment rights of the press. It is, however, illegal for broadcasters to intentionally distort the news, and the FCC may act on complaints if there is documented evidence of such behavior from persons with direct personal knowledge.

This is also besides slander and libel, lying about an individual or organization.

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

#460

Post by buescher » Fri, Mar 12, 2021, 5:49 PM UTC

ralmidani wrote: post #433

vlanders10 wrote: post #405

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Also "remorse", which is quite popular among SJW tribunals when they silence someone on unverified testimony of the popular clique members while refusing to hear the "accused" even once.

I'm not even close to being a leftist (but sign me up for Social Justice without the tribunals). Regarding your parent post's objection to "redeemable", it's not used in religious contexts exclusively.

Yeah, sure, the original post meant that extremists are redeemable for prizes. The other senses of the term are religious metaphor.