Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

You can't censor away extremism or any other problem

freddiedeboer.substack.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

641–650 of 863 posts

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

#641

Post by Jarwain »

Alupis wrote: post #542
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…

Can anyone name a time in history where the people censoring things turned out to be the "Good Guys"?

Isn't this subject to survivorship bias? If, 1000 years ago some movement was censored by the "good guys", if they've done a half-competent job, would we even Know they tried censoring things in the first place?

Not to mention how the "good guys" are usually just whomever manages to last/survive

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

#642

Post by DC1350 »

websites2323 wrote: post #631
DC1350 wrote: post #616

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I’m gay so things like this matter to me. A lot of trans rhetoric is deeply homophobic.

What trans rhetoric is homophobic?

Like the idea that a homosexual can be attracted to an opposite sexed person, the term “genital preference”, that a gender non-conforming boy might actually be a girl, etc.

Essentially, the idea that a person could be attracted to the body of the sex they aren’t attracted to is the same idea behind conversion therapy. Anecdotally, I’ve spent way too much time trying to change my “genital preference” for me to think it’s true.

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

#643

Post by closeparen »

eeZah7Ux wrote: post #560
bleah1000 wrote: post #530

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is just a few people explaining how they de-radicalized. Now imagine the opposite, someone with some slightly bad opinion suddenly finds themselves shut out of the main platforms because of hate speech rules. They now become more radicalized. Due to the number of people constantly being suspended/banned I think there is a greater chance that these people will become radicalized, than someone will realize they ha…

> some slightly bad opinion suddenly finds themselves shut out of the main platforms because of hate speech rules A "slightly bad opinion" has to be more than "slightly bad" to break hate speech rules. If you feel a platform is overzealous in enforcing hate speech rules, don't use it. Or maybe ask yourself some questions before moving out. EDIT: the rain of downvotes is telling as usual.

Today Dr. Seuss is hate speech. Tomorrow Dr. Seuss apologia will be hate speech. Even from the perspective that this is progress, it’s very fast progress. Today’s white supremacists are last week’s liberals who didn’t update their opinions fast enough.

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

#644

Post by jackson1442 »

closeparen wrote: post #643
eeZah7Ux wrote: post #560

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> some slightly bad opinion suddenly finds themselves shut out of the main platforms because of hate speech rules A "slightly bad opinion" has to be more than "slightly bad" to break hate speech rules. If you feel a platform is overzealous in enforcing hate speech rules, don't use it. Or maybe ask yourself some questions before moving out. EDIT: the rain of downvotes is telling as usual.

Today Dr. Seuss is hate speech. Tomorrow Dr. Seuss apologia will be hate speech. Even from the perspective that this is progress, it’s very fast progress. Today’s white supremacists are last week’s liberals who didn’t update their opinions fast enough.

When did Dr. Seuss become hate speech? Last I checked, my extended family still reads Dr. Seuss books with their small children.

Yes, Seuss's family pulled a few books from production but I don't recall anyone decrying them.

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

#645

Post by wnoise »

feoren wrote: post #543
rayiner wrote: post #464

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Allowing "dog whistles" to be censored also creates a powerful incentive to redefine ideas the censors don't like as "dog whistles." For example: https://www.nytimes.com/2020/09/18/opinion/biden-latino-vote... > With the help of two liberal pollsters, Joshua Ulibarri and Celinda Lake, we conducted 15 focus groups with members of various Hispanic communities across the country and ran a national survey. We also polled…

This reminds me of the argument that police forces can't be racist if they employ black officers. Even black police officers are more likely to shoot an innocent black man than an innocent white man in the same situation. Want to find someone who is racist against Argentinians? Go to Peru or Chile. Just because some Latinos in a focus group agree with a message does not mean it's not racist against Latinos.

The stats show the police, black or white, are about equally likely to use excessive force against black or white people _per incident_. The problem is that they make contact with black people far more often per-capita. Some of this is being more suspicious of black people, of looking harder at them to find something. This is most convincingly seen with the drug war, where uses of drugs are about equal by race, but black people are stopped, searched, and arrested significantly more often. Some is a larger pre-existing societal problem of where people live. When black people are more likely to live in bad neighborhoods, and police are more likely to have encounters in bad neighborhoods...

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

#646

Post by wnoise »

bloaf wrote: post #356

I have some unprofessional sociological suspicions, so I will lay them out as assertions with this caveat serving as the blanket qualifier. First, some observations: 1. Research has found that the probability of conspiratorial thinking is quadratic with respect to political extremism in either direction. 2. Dangerous political movements are predicated on an "us v. them" mentality, almost by definition of dangerous .…

> 1. Research has found that the probability of conspiratorial thinking is quadratic with respect to political extremism in either direction.

Extremism has no natural quantification. This statement is nonsense.

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

#647

Post by 11thEarlOfMar »

I keep coming back to whether people in general still think open mindedness is a virtue. By open mindedness, I mean open to new experience, open to new ideas, open to new people. Practicing openness means observing and hearing and then evaluating for yourself whether you want to assimilate the experience or idea into your life.

Open mindedness also means being open to new information, even if it contradicts a basis for what you already believe or practice. If we are not open to contradiction, we can never recognize when we are wrong about what we believe. Being wrong about what we believe leads to doom for societies.

Hate is expressed in many ways, some nuanced, some not. But I have confidence that I can witness it, identify it, and categorize for myself. Allowing others to control what I am exposed to means I am no longer in control of what I know and believe. We've seen this creeping definition of hate over the last so many years. It's modulated to the point that I don't know what people mean any longer when they claim 'racism' for example, yet they prevent me from seeing or reading examples, even so I can just identify it and judge for myself.

Freedom means determining for yourself what is and is not hate. Having it hidden from you takes that freedom away.

It is our responsibility as free persons to learn how to observe and judge what should and should not be part of our lives. Collectively, we will keep hate at bay simply by recognizing it for ourselves and not assimilating it into our lives.

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

#648

Post by jackson1442 »

potta_coffee wrote: post #340
Retric wrote: post #299

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yea, a recent example of environmental shaming that worked was the reduction of littering from cars. Roadside cleanup helped, but tossing stuff out of car windows used to be significantly more common. What’s notable is no organization benefited from littering so there is little pushback on the subject, just millions of people behaving slightly differently.

The tickets for littering are huge.

I believe the "Don't mess with Texas" advertising campaign was actually significantly more helpful than the ticket cost. If you think about it, people usually only know about the cost if they get fined but people know that it is frowned upon to litter through an advertising campaign.

After all, the people in and around your car can judge and shame you while you can only get a ticket if there's a cop around.

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

#649

Post by bloaf »

wnoise wrote: post #646
bloaf wrote: post #356

I have some unprofessional sociological suspicions, so I will lay them out as assertions with this caveat serving as the blanket qualifier. First, some observations: 1. Research has found that the probability of conspiratorial thinking is quadratic with respect to political extremism in either direction. 2. Dangerous political movements are predicated on an "us v. them" mentality, almost by definition of dangerous .…

> 1. Research has found that the probability of conspiratorial thinking is quadratic with respect to political extremism in either direction. Extremism has no natural quantification. This statement is nonsense.

You can take that up with the authors:

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/271714033_Political...

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

#650

Post by unethical_ban »

buescher wrote: post #619
unethical_ban wrote: post #492

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You and the people who talk like you are getting downvoted because you're contrarian without actually stating an opposition view to what you're ranting about. Someone: Extremism is bad. You: What is extreme is subjective. The next step would be for you to try to give counter points of what you think is extreme that others consider not, or better, what you think is not extreme that others consider so.

You're just fishing for a nice and spicy example. Here is a bland one. I have a big cup of coffee on my desk right now. There are very nice people right here in the USA, some of whom have been my neighbors and about whom I will say nothing derogatory, who think I am endangering my immortal soul by drinking from it. Some might consider taking one or the other stance extreme. I think weighing in publicly on whether suc…

You're looking for some pure, objective reality that will never exist. You have to take a stand at some point; you cannot sit and say "who am I to say?"

"Who am I to say if it's wrong to believe people should be killed and enslaved for their skin color? Next thing you know, someone may think I'm extreme for what coffee I drink!"

Your argument is inane.

Post reply on HN