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

681–690 of 863 posts

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

#681

Post by hef19898 »

Viliam1234 wrote: post #659
louwrentius wrote: post #611

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You seem to get down-voted but I agree with your view and I think is is funny that the free-speech-absolutists downvote / to take your speech away. To be intolerant against intolerance is at the heart of any stable, decent, livable society. I don’t understand the view of the free-speech-absolutists because it is so obvious that it doesn’t work. In Europe - or least in The Netherlands - saying discriminatory thing can…

> To be intolerant against intolerance is at the heart of any stable, decent, livable society. I agree; in the name of preserving social order, SJWs should all be thrown in jails. Just kidding... but that's what the article is talking about. You can make strict laws (or social norms) against "intolerance", and someone else will be happy you handed them a powerful weapon they can use against you. Do your political opp…

If almost 80 years of havinthese laws in basically every European democracy doesn't proof that these laws aren't miss used, I don't know what can.

And no, denying people service, jobs and social security based on color, religion sex or whatnot is not the same as fighting for people to have these rights. Because the former takes away rights, while the latter grants rights without anybody else loosing anything.

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

#682

Post by redis_mlc »

TameAntelope wrote: post #7

> Look: the most powerful governments, militaries, and intelligence services in the world have in recent decades tried to prevent the communications of terrorist groups such as Al-Qaeda and ISIS, using the most sophisticated digital means possible and with the full backing of various publishing and social media platforms. And yet those organizations effortlessly shared their propaganda and their rhetoric and coordina…

> terrorist groups such as Al-Qaeda and ISIS

They're not "terrorist groups", they're just following the Koran. What do you think the first 2 letters in ISIS mean?

Also, Muslims who promote traditional Islamic violence have dozens of Youtube channels today. The reason is that Youtube delegates complaints to ... Muslim moderators, who are also "just following the Koran."

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

#683

Post by lliamander »

kelnos wrote: post #595
DC1350 wrote: post #570

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That’s not true. Not being attracted to transgender people is enough to get banned on Reddit. I was banned from r/asktransgender for telling a girl in a relationship with a pre-transition MtF person that it doesn’t make sense to call herself a lesbian (since sexual orientation is based on sex and not gender)

Why would you barge into someone else's community and police their use of terminology? Why would you think anyone cares about what you have to say on that topic? At best it's an annoying distraction; at worst it makes people feel like shit for needing to constantly justify their existence.

In general I agree. This was the same problem when social justice advocates (particularly those who were not core contributors) were trying to force "codes of conduct" on open source communities that felt no need for them.

But in this case, my understanding is that the distinction of sex and gender is essential to the concept of transgender in the first place. Is insisting (perhaps somewhat pedantically) on using those terms in a consistent fashion really an offense?

Now, they are free to exclude people for whatever reason they want. Sub-reddits are not supposed to be all things to all people. But the statement does not strike me as obviously offensive to trans people (I've even seen them make the same distinction).

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

#684

Post by fhood »

wnoise wrote: post #672
fhood wrote: post #664

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't what the research is in question, but I absolutely think that political extremism, particularly in the context of two party systems, can quantified in at least a semi-meaningful way. Create a list of policies. Poll a large equally split group of registered voters from either party. Assign each policy an extremism index based on some combination of the amount of cross party support, and the percentage of total…

You might be able to order it, sure. Translating that into magnitudes is entirely subjective.

Why wouldn't the magnitude be a direct consequence of the two factors I already mentioned? Crossparty support and percentage of total?

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

#685

Post by claudiawerner »

wtetzner wrote: post #617
pjc50 wrote: post #477

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Al-Quaeda might not appreciate being labelled as extremists, but so what? We have to call things as we see them. And build a consensus around what's core values and within the normal range of debate, and what's beyond that into dangerous, destructive, and even murderous.

You ban dangerous actions , not speech. When you start censoring speech, you give a very small group of people the ability to silence whoever the please.

Surely it's also true that when you start preventing actions, you give a very small group of people the ability to prevent the actions of whoever they please. It's hard to see the point being made here.

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

#686

Post by buescher »

unethical_ban wrote: post #650
buescher wrote: post #619

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

The redemption of (your fictional) people who merely believe your more inflammatory example is not between them and me.

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

#687

Post by tablespoon »

rednerrus wrote: post #569
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.

Who decides?

> Who decides?

Who decides if Nazis are allowed to put signs with Nazi slogans on your lawn?

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

#688

Post by louwrentius »

Viliam1234 wrote: post #659
louwrentius wrote: post #611

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You seem to get down-voted but I agree with your view and I think is is funny that the free-speech-absolutists downvote / to take your speech away. To be intolerant against intolerance is at the heart of any stable, decent, livable society. I don’t understand the view of the free-speech-absolutists because it is so obvious that it doesn’t work. In Europe - or least in The Netherlands - saying discriminatory thing can…

> To be intolerant against intolerance is at the heart of any stable, decent, livable society. I agree; in the name of preserving social order, SJWs should all be thrown in jails. Just kidding... but that's what the article is talking about. You can make strict laws (or social norms) against "intolerance", and someone else will be happy you handed them a powerful weapon they can use against you. Do your political opp…

The funny thing is that free speech doesn't exist. Nowhere do you get free speech. There are always limits. Even in the USA.

Let me tell you also a secret. It is not about political opponents disagreeing over their views. That is not the intolerance I refer to. You make it a sad word game.

It's the intolerance of discrimination, of hatred of (groups) of people. We in The Netherlands have laws against discriminatory speech and hate speech.

Last time I checked, SJW mostly are against stuff like discrimination. They are no threat. This is not a 'both sides' situation.

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

#689

Post by DubiousPusher »

smaryjerry wrote: post #227
DubiousPusher wrote: post #111

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Of course you can do it in theory. The question is, whether you can do it today and whether those attempts will turn out more dangerous than helpful. Allow me to restate my position more precisely. I believe the supresion of information has worked in the past. And based on this I will need very compelling evidence to convince me that we live in a special time when it is impossible and no longer is effective. I'm ha…

The article itself makes the arguments for this. One, hate speech just rebrands. Two, the assumption that what you want censored is what will get censored is false, especially if you feel you are the marginalized group already. So what censorship is effective? Pushing existing already popular ideas that are widely held already. This makes censorship basically useless, and more so creates problems for anyone who doesn…

> The article itself makes the arguments for this. One, hate speech just rebrands. Two, the assumption that what you want censored is what will get censored is false,

I don't believe either point is true. For example, the concerted efforts to silence, defame and de-platform socialists in 1950s America were highly effect.

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

#690

Post by mindcandy »

ds206 wrote: post #577
mindcandy wrote: post #540

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's what makes it such an effective troll. If it was simply obviously bad from all conceivable contexts it wouldn't work. But, you are still being trolled. And, you are playing right into their game. They are getting you to sing their slogan and laughing at you the whole time. Yes, there are some people out there in social media who have taken to hating white people for being white. That's not OK. Call it out. But…

I thought we were talking about the people who have taken to hating white people for being white? But you said they were trolls? And we should call it out? Isn't that what the poster above you was doing? Talking in circles, in circles...

You've mixed up the groups.

There's the group of anti-white haters who need to be called out. There's the vast majority of people who don't want any form of racial hatred. And, then there's the white supremacist trolls (and just plain trolls) who want to trick the vast majority of people into fighting themselves and in the process make it look like anti-white hatred is much, much more common than it really is.

"It's OK to be white" is a troll campaign that is actively being used to bait people into fighting each other and to have both sides come out thinking the other is far more racist than they really are.

Post reply on HN