771–780 of 863 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
No, obviously it would not be okay. What point are you trying to make?
So, deplatforming (silencing) a group is okay, but doing the same for other group is not okay based on some arbitrary criteria.
"Arbitrary criteria" describes all norms.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It’s only “disingenuous” if you aren’t a liberal. I’m a liberal so I believe people are free to hold any opinion they want as long as they are not promoting direct harm to anyone else and I will not be shamed out of a liberal position by exceptional strawmen.
https://nymag.com/intelligencer/article/marjorie-taylor-gree... Blonde, sure, but IDK if I'd call her hair straw.
Any rational person, upon hearing a suggestion that Jews are responsible for starting forest fires by using laser beams from space, would quite naturally dismiss the claim as nonsense. And the claim is so ludicrous on its face that a rational person would, quite justifiably, assume that it could only ever be offered as a strawman.
Yet, here we are--with a duly elected congresswoman of the United States House of Representatives subscribing to (or at least passively entertaining) said strawman.
There are, perhaps, too many well-intentioned, good-natured, level-headed people out there who are simply far too sheltered from the outright insanity that is permeating throughout our society. They are far too quick to assume that human nature tends toward the same pursuits of truth, justice, and liberty which they value--and that merely offering a level playing field for ideas to compete will inevitably result in the triumph of those which are most noble.
While this bright-eyed and bushy-tailed approach to life is certainly tempting to adopt, it is quite disconnected from the world around us. Rationality and competence are under siege by people who do not adhere to an evidence-based view of reality. One cannot be reasonable with unreasonable people. Moderation and ostracization are perfectly valid tools for dealing with such individuals.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>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. This is a bad argument; it is a fact, for example, that child pornography by being censored creates a taboo around it. It's also true that some people will seek it out because of its taboo nature - something it would not be (or only…
> it presupposes that free speech is so good and basic that it overrides all other rights. Yes. Speech is not action :)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
There's no legal right, unless you are a government employee (who btw routinely censor anyway, e.g. any state university with a content-based speech policy is violating the law). But there's very much a moral right and moral obligation - if you are in a position of power, as people leading the high-tech industry and prominent politicians are, you are responsible for maintaining the society that promoted you to that p…
So in the case that participants on a social platform engage in trolling, harassment, and abuse (sometimes with bots), that company should not do anything? If some people who are attempting to exchange ideas and debate in good faith, are shouted down by people hurling epithets and death threats, the platform owners should shrug their shoulders? When people openly promote and even plan violent attacks against others b…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
So, deplatforming (silencing) a group is okay, but doing the same for other group is not okay based on some arbitrary criteria.
It's ok to kiss your spouse but not a stranger. It's ok to punch someone who punched you but dont go to a kindergarten and start punching kids. "Arbitrary criteria" describes all norms.
You know exactly what I mean, cut the bullshit. Point being, deplatforming may be okay for the group who exercises it, but not for the group that is being deplatformed. Who the fuck decides? The government? Some out of touch Big Tech CEOs? Fuck that.
Just take a look at Venezuela's current "Law against Hatred" (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_against_Hatred)to get an idea of how dumb this whole approach is.
Now, if I'd be willing to argue that this is a antitrust issue (FB, TW, Google / Amazon AWS, CloudFlare / PayPal, Stripe / Visa, MasterCard) having too much power to the point that they decide whether you live or not, and that there should be way more alternatives.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
The difference is that when you prevent speech, you can't even discuss changes to the laws. The censorship of speech gives a much different and somewhat hidden form of power.
This is a type of speech, and there's no reason all speech should be regulated uniformly, just as speech and actions should presumably not be regulated uniformly. We could just prevent actions without bothering with speech at all, but (for instance) it seems similarly doable to ban certain forms of speech that cause unreasonable harm while leaving other forms alone.
An argument could be made that this would be yet another slippery slope, but I think at some point every law falls into that category and a society must decide whether the benefits are worth the tradeoff of starting down this path.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
https://nymag.com/intelligencer/article/marjorie-taylor-gree... Blonde, sure, but IDK if I'd call her hair straw.
I truly love this exchange. Any rational person, upon hearing a suggestion that Jews are responsible for starting forest fires by using laser beams from space, would quite naturally dismiss the claim as nonsense. And the claim is so ludicrous on its face that a rational person would, quite justifiably, assume that it could only ever be offered as a strawman. Yet, here we are--with a duly elected congresswoman of the…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It’s only “disingenuous” if you aren’t a liberal. I’m a liberal so I believe people are free to hold any opinion they want as long as they are not promoting direct harm to anyone else and I will not be shamed out of a liberal position by exceptional strawmen.
https://nymag.com/intelligencer/article/marjorie-taylor-gree... Blonde, sure, but IDK if I'd call her hair straw.