4 ms·

> It's very possible that the core beliefs and faith on which the Internet as a radically open, radically free, nearly anarchic space was founded, are...wrong..

> It's very possible that the core beliefs and faith on which the Internet as a radically open, radically free, nearly anarchic space was founded, are...wrong... I don't really understand this sentiment. If we admit that we all hold beliefs that could be wrong, isn't the ultimate conclusion radical freedom? The radical freedom of the internet isn't a result of a set of beliefs, it's the result of evicting belief and allowing all ideas to stand on their own merit. > We all thought, like the author, that access to the Internet will put people in connection who otherwise don't hear from each other, that we will be exposed to new views, be more open-minded, etc. And the opposite has happened. I think you're wrong here. The world is becoming an exponentially more peaceful and tolerant place in my experience. There is still a vocal minority which gets attention thanks to the open platform, but the overall result of this openness seems to be growing disdain for beliefs which we now know are founded in hate, not logic or science. Do you really feel that the world is in a worse place than it was in the 70's or even in 2010? In what ways? > It became difficult when you would go online and see just how many people iterated these sentiments behind a veil of anonymity. Genuine question, what percentage of 4chan do you believe is racist? Do you feel that racist memes genuinely come from a place of racism? What large anonymous groups do you believe consist of genuine racists? Do you consider me a racist if I make the statement, "more crime in America is committed by people with dark skin, relatively", even if I make no attempt to suggest a correlation or reason for this statistic?

denom 9y ago
1) Yes to ideas on the own merits, but not if those ideas ingratiate themselves vis an unwholesome, saccharine, aptitude that pits human nature against itself. 2) this is debatable, but instability is present in our political system from top to bottom which I believe is due to these transformative tech movements. We should not assume that the sun will rise tomorrow (as in some occasions it will not). 3) your discussion about 4chan lacks some precept or basis of intelligibility. Imagine a similar question as being “what percentage of a psychotic mood is racist”. It’s a non sequitor and doesn’t address the substance of the problem. Similarly, your posited question about ‘dark skin’ lacks traction for similar reasons and illustrates the baseless nature of the internet meme-culture.
- neveroffensive 9y ago
  > your discussion about 4chan lacks some precept or basis of intelligibility. The poster clearly feels there are large groups of racists on the internet. I'm trying to ascertain where they think these groups are, and exactly what they feel these groups believe. The 4chan mention was a guess. > Imagine a similar question as being “what percentage of a psychotic mood is racist”. It’s a non sequitor and doesn’t address the substance of the problem. I stand by my question. I think the poster has misconceptions about internet culture, and wish to reach the root of them to either correct them, or my own misconceptions. You're assertion here dose not make sense to me. > Similarly, your posited question about ‘dark skin’ lacks traction for similar reasons and illustrates the baseless nature of the internet meme-culture. Once again, I'm trying to understand how the poster conceptualizes racism both within the context of the internet, and society as a whole. Forgive me, but if someone is seeing pervasive racism in society I want to know where and why. I fail to see how this is me parroting a baseless meme-culture. I'm sorry if talking about skin color and crime offends you, but that is no excuse to disregard me as some sort of troll. I have a genuine desire to engage with the poster on their opinions about the nature of the internet/racism/social progress, and being dismissed in such a pedantic manner seems uncalled for. Edit: My larger point here is, in my experience racists are a dwindling minority. However, people have begun to conflate certain types of discussion, and forms of comedy (namely absurdist), with genuine racism. These misconceptions are leading them to feel that the internet is somehow heavily racist. True racism is a serious issue, and deserves a heavy handed response. We need to be careful that the racism we point out is true racism, not just an opinion we disagree with, or a joke we don't find funny.
AgentME 9y ago
>Genuine question, what percentage of 4chan do you believe is racist? Do you feel that racist memes genuinely come from a place of racism? Five years ago, I'd say a small fraction and "No", but I no longer believe either of those. The amount of vocal support for possible racist policies, celebration of politicians' racist dog-whistling, and worship of neo-Nazi figures since then was way higher than I ever expected. When it was just jokes and memes, it was easy to write off as ironic, and maybe much of it was, but real support can't be written off as ironic. Maybe the people changed over the years, or maybe it's just different people. (Maybe ironic memes drew in people that liked them unironically: "Any community that gets its laughs by pretending to be idiots will eventually be flooded by actual idiots who mistakenly believe that they're in good company.") Or maybe it's largely the same people, but the relationship between the internet and politics has changed since then, with people more willing to fully discuss their political ideas (including racist ones) now online.
- empath75 9y ago
  We are what we pretend to be, so we must be careful about what we pretend to be. — Kurt Vonnegut Jr., Mother Night
- CaptSpify 9y ago
  But that's kind of a feature, rather than a bug. Speaking for the USA: We're a pretty racist country, that's not news to anyone. What was news, especially for the coasts, was just how racist much of the US still is. By giving these people a voice, we now know that they exist, and what they really believe. You never would have gotten that out of them by just talking to them on the street. Do certain parts of internet culture encourage that behavior? Absolutely, and it's terrible, and we need to find ways to fix it. But to fix that problem, we need to understand it first.
  - MBCook 9y ago
    Before the racists were, to some degree, self-censoring due to their fear of how they were perceived by others. In many cases they would try to conform more so that they wouldn’t be outcast. Now people are far more aware how many racists are in the US. And many of them have taken that as proof that there’s nothing wrong with their way of thinking and are censoring themselves less. They are discussing their beliefs and pushing their agendas stronger than they have in a long time. Is that an actual improvement? Before all but some of the most hard-core we’re effectively incentivized to be more accepting. Now they’ve learned not only do they not have to do that, they can STRENGTHEN their position knowing there are others like them. Given the level of backlash they’ve faced, I don’t think it’s an improvement.
abusoufiyan 9y ago
>isn't the ultimate conclusion radical freedom? No. The belief that allowing all ideas to stand on their own merit would be inherently good is the sentiment we are questioning. Is it? Is a radically free market in terms of goods and supplies the best idea? If not, why did we think it would apply to speech and ideas? As much as we love to live in the fantasy where good speech will counter bad speech, our history of research into markets and behavioral economics should show us that marketing, the ability to control outlets of speech, etc. make it unlikely that good speech always gets an equal (or even similar) opportunity to counter bad speech). >the overall result of this openness seems to be growing disdain for beliefs which we now know are founded in hate, not logic or science. All beliefs have some kind of fundamental assumption taken on faith, even the ones you will claim are founded on logic and science. Even the idea of science as definitive proof is based on the fundamental belief that the peer review method of scientific correction and checking cannot be coopted or subverted (and yet examples show that it can). >Do you really feel that the world is in a worse place than it was in the 70's or even in 2010? No but why does this matter? It doesn't mean every choice we made in the past was right. If we had chosen a centrally controlled, heavily censored Internet rather than the radically free and open model we live with now, still the world would be a better place than in the 70s.

denom 9y ago

1) Yes to ideas on the own merits, but not if those ideas ingratiate themselves vis an unwholesome, saccharine, aptitude that pits human nature against itself. 2) this is debatable, but instability is present in our political system from top to bottom which I believe is due to these transformative tech movements. We should not assume that the sun will rise tomorrow (as in some occasions it will not). 3) your discussion about 4chan lacks some precept or basis of intelligibility. Imagine a similar question as being “what percentage of a psychotic mood is racist”. It’s a non sequitor and doesn’t address the substance of the problem. Similarly, your posited question about ‘dark skin’ lacks traction for similar reasons and illustrates the baseless nature of the internet meme-culture.

neveroffensive 9y ago
> your discussion about 4chan lacks some precept or basis of intelligibility. The poster clearly feels there are large groups of racists on the internet. I'm trying to ascertain where they think these groups are, and exactly what they feel these groups believe. The 4chan mention was a guess. > Imagine a similar question as being “what percentage of a psychotic mood is racist”. It’s a non sequitor and doesn’t address the substance of the problem. I stand by my question. I think the poster has misconceptions about internet culture, and wish to reach the root of them to either correct them, or my own misconceptions. You're assertion here dose not make sense to me. > Similarly, your posited question about ‘dark skin’ lacks traction for similar reasons and illustrates the baseless nature of the internet meme-culture. Once again, I'm trying to understand how the poster conceptualizes racism both within the context of the internet, and society as a whole. Forgive me, but if someone is seeing pervasive racism in society I want to know where and why. I fail to see how this is me parroting a baseless meme-culture. I'm sorry if talking about skin color and crime offends you, but that is no excuse to disregard me as some sort of troll. I have a genuine desire to engage with the poster on their opinions about the nature of the internet/racism/social progress, and being dismissed in such a pedantic manner seems uncalled for. Edit: My larger point here is, in my experience racists are a dwindling minority. However, people have begun to conflate certain types of discussion, and forms of comedy (namely absurdist), with genuine racism. These misconceptions are leading them to feel that the internet is somehow heavily racist. True racism is a serious issue, and deserves a heavy handed response. We need to be careful that the racism we point out is true racism, not just an opinion we disagree with, or a joke we don't find funny.

AgentME 9y ago

>Genuine question, what percentage of 4chan do you believe is racist? Do you feel that racist memes genuinely come from a place of racism? Five years ago, I'd say a small fraction and "No", but I no longer believe either of those. The amount of vocal support for possible racist policies, celebration of politicians' racist dog-whistling, and worship of neo-Nazi figures since then was way higher than I ever expected. When it was just jokes and memes, it was easy to write off as ironic, and maybe much of it was, but real support can't be written off as ironic. Maybe the people changed over the years, or maybe it's just different people. (Maybe ironic memes drew in people that liked them unironically: "Any community that gets its laughs by pretending to be idiots will eventually be flooded by actual idiots who mistakenly believe that they're in good company.") Or maybe it's largely the same people, but the relationship between the internet and politics has changed since then, with people more willing to fully discuss their political ideas (including racist ones) now online.

empath75 9y ago
We are what we pretend to be, so we must be careful about what we pretend to be. — Kurt Vonnegut Jr., Mother Night
CaptSpify 9y ago
But that's kind of a feature, rather than a bug. Speaking for the USA: We're a pretty racist country, that's not news to anyone. What was news, especially for the coasts, was just how racist much of the US still is. By giving these people a voice, we now know that they exist, and what they really believe. You never would have gotten that out of them by just talking to them on the street. Do certain parts of internet culture encourage that behavior? Absolutely, and it's terrible, and we need to find ways to fix it. But to fix that problem, we need to understand it first.
- MBCook 9y ago
  Before the racists were, to some degree, self-censoring due to their fear of how they were perceived by others. In many cases they would try to conform more so that they wouldn’t be outcast. Now people are far more aware how many racists are in the US. And many of them have taken that as proof that there’s nothing wrong with their way of thinking and are censoring themselves less. They are discussing their beliefs and pushing their agendas stronger than they have in a long time. Is that an actual improvement? Before all but some of the most hard-core we’re effectively incentivized to be more accepting. Now they’ve learned not only do they not have to do that, they can STRENGTHEN their position knowing there are others like them. Given the level of backlash they’ve faced, I don’t think it’s an improvement.

abusoufiyan 9y ago

>isn't the ultimate conclusion radical freedom? No. The belief that allowing all ideas to stand on their own merit would be inherently good is the sentiment we are questioning. Is it? Is a radically free market in terms of goods and supplies the best idea? If not, why did we think it would apply to speech and ideas? As much as we love to live in the fantasy where good speech will counter bad speech, our history of research into markets and behavioral economics should show us that marketing, the ability to control outlets of speech, etc. make it unlikely that good speech always gets an equal (or even similar) opportunity to counter bad speech). >the overall result of this openness seems to be growing disdain for beliefs which we now know are founded in hate, not logic or science. All beliefs have some kind of fundamental assumption taken on faith, even the ones you will claim are founded on logic and science. Even the idea of science as definitive proof is based on the fundamental belief that the peer review method of scientific correction and checking cannot be coopted or subverted (and yet examples show that it can). >Do you really feel that the world is in a worse place than it was in the 70's or even in 2010? No but why does this matter? It doesn't mean every choice we made in the past was right. If we had chosen a centrally controlled, heavily censored Internet rather than the radically free and open model we live with now, still the world would be a better place than in the 70s.