9 ms·

>I wonder if a connection has been found in even a single case. I'd argue that the psychopaths who're attracted to such forums have their hateful beliefs reinf

• naasking 8y ago
  > I'd argue that the psychopaths who're attracted to such forums have their hateful beliefs reinforced and amplified by them I agree. I think the echo chamber effect is well documented at this point, and it's something that's happening even in mainstream media. I would still hesitate to say that we should lay the blame on these forums though, or undeniably conclude that that's where we should be making changes to prevent such problems. If we hold free speech as a principle in high regard, we shouldn't so easily sacrifice it.
  • DavidVoid 8y ago
    >I would still hesitate to say that we should lay the blame on these forums though, or undeniably conclude that that's where we should be making changes to prevent such problems. I wouldn't say lay the blame on the forums for the actions for their members, however I do think it would be somewhat justified to lay the blame on forums for knowingly allowing these hateful ideologies to spread to more and more people due to their lack of action/moderation. It's been shown that banning hateful subreddits reduces the amount of hate speech on the site by users who used to post on those banned subreddits.[1] It's hard to say if those users simply took their hate speech to some other website, but even if they did their sphere of influence would then most likely be much smaller than it was on reddit. >If we hold free speech as a principle in high regard, we shouldn't so easily sacrifice it. This is a difficult topic but I think that there definitely should be some limits. After all we're talking about what rules private companies should have for what kind of content is allowed on their websites (i.e. what content they are okay with hosting on their servers) and not what kind of content the government should allow/disallow. A viewpoint I found interesting (and reasonable) in regards to limiting speech is Karl Popper's paradox of tolerance. "Less well known is the paradox of tolerance: Unlimited tolerance must lead to the disappearance of tolerance. If we extend unlimited tolerance even to those who are intolerant, if we are not prepared to defend a tolerant society against the onslaught of the intolerant, then the tolerant will be destroyed, and tolerance with them. — In this formulation, I do not imply, for instance, that we should always suppress the utterance of intolerant philosophies; as long as we can counter them by rational argument and keep them in check by public opinion, suppression would certainly be unwise. But we should claim the right to suppress them if necessary even by force; for it may easily turn out that they are not prepared to meet us on the level of rational argument, but begin by denouncing all argument; they may forbid their followers to listen to rational argument, because it is deceptive, and teach them to answer arguments by the use of their fists or pistols. We should therefore claim, in the name of tolerance, the right not to tolerate the intolerant." [1] http://comp.social.gatech.edu/papers/cscw18-chand-hate.pdf http://comp.social.gatech.edu/papers/cscw18-chand-hate.pdf
    • naasking 8y ago
      > It's been shown that banning hateful subreddits reduces the amount of hate speech on the site by users who used to post on those banned subreddits. But as you say, it doesn't necessarily reduce hate or hate speech overall. In fact, it may even galvanize it further. How do you think the US got all of those conservative news networks like Fox? Because rich conservatives got tired of their opinions being ignored or silenced (from their perspective). Great quote by Popper, but the problem is that there is great intolerance on both sides of the spectrum, left and right. The extreme left on reddit is not being silenced the way the extreme right is. Both sides are intolerant of facts and rational argument that doesn't adhere to their dogma, so why is only one being pushed out? I read some studies awhile back that suggested that centrism appears to be no more or less persuasive to most people than extremist positions. People will latch on to specific things that resonate, and just adopt the rest thinking that said resonance means they belong in this group, which ultimately leads to polarization around a small number of extreme positions that are irreconcilable. Takeaway facts: a) that seems to explain the US's politics over the past few decades, b) bipartisan-type compromise may not be a stable condition, and c) centrism is itself a position that needs its own advocates.
      • camgunz 8y ago
        > The extreme left on reddit is not being silenced the way the extreme right is. I think this is a false equivalence. The extreme right is deeply racist/homophobic/sexist, denies science, advocates for a theocracy and for the shutting down of government services to the extent that millions of people will die. Say what you want about the "extreme" left's social policies but they're really not on that level.
        • naasking 8y ago
          > The extreme right is deeply racist/homophobic/sexist, denies science, advocates for a theocracy and for the shutting down of government services to the extent that millions of people will die. Would you like me to point you to the videos of extreme left protests assaulting professors on campuses for wanting to host an open debate on topics they find offensive? Or videos on extreme left protestors trying to shut down any scientific discussion that raises the fact of differences between men and women. I can also show you the recent amendments to the Ontario law in which it is now illegal to not use non-gendered pronouns. I'm sure you've heard of Peterson and his crusade, and while he's got some kooky views on some matters, he's not entirely wrong about the dangers of our human rights tribunals and how they will apply this law (see the Lindsay Shepherd incident where they already tried to censor an academic discussion on this issue). I can also show you plenty of instances of organized campaigns to harass, disrupt and ruin people's lives for off-hand comments made online. Sorry, but it's no longer a false equivalence. The extreme left has become just as extreme, just as anti-science, and just as dangerous as the extreme right. Note that we're not talking about ordinary leftist/liberal policies of social programs, and such, we're talking extreme left that, for instance, denies even the existence of gender and for whom denying this fact simply makes you an evil tyrant that they seek to literally ruin.
• ameister14 8y ago
  You could argue that, but there's no real evidence for it and it's been studied with music, television and video games. All have been blamed, using the argument that you'd have to be naive to assume that killing people in a video game doesn't have an effect on someone's likelihood of killing people in real life, or listening to angry music makes you more likely to hurt people. The list of murderers who've listened to 2Pac is quite long, for example.
  • loup-vaillant 8y ago
    I don't know about the other media, but the effects of TV are both disastrous and thoroughly demonstrated. IQ, SAT scores, obesity, teen pregnancy, violence, tobacco… Depending on what you watch and how often, all can be increased. All won't show on each individual, but the statistical effect is far from negligible. As for video games… that's a tricky one. I recall an anecdote about two teens holding up a bakery at gun point. The baker at some point made a move that was a bit too sudden, and the teen shot him in the forehead. One possible facilitator is very similar to a soldier's training: simple conditioning about shooting the bad guys as soon as they threaten your avatar in your favourite FPS. For all I know the teen didn't even intend to shoot. Of course, it takes more than a lifetime of violent video games to actually point a gun at someone. But a tiny nudge can sometimes push you over the edge. By the way, I expect the nudge will get bigger with VR. (So will the benefits, I expect.)
    • ameister14 8y ago
      While awful, one of the problems with that facilitator is that you don't shoot the enemy when they threaten you in an FPS. You shoot them when you see them.
      • loup-vaillant 8y ago
        Correct, I'm not sure how well that would translate. Probably not very well.
    • drak0n1c 8y ago
      Correlation does not prove causation. Maybe people with those lifestyles happen to enjoy TV more than others.