16 ms·

Because when people like this aren't silenced and laughed at, from some angles they seem like normal people and not the ones promoting monstrous ideas. No ever

Because when people like this aren't silenced and laughed at, from some angles they seem like normal people and not the ones promoting monstrous ideas. No everyone have well informed world view.

pandler 8y ago
Which sounds like a fine argument to make when dealing with the more extreme cases, but where do you draw the line of who gets silenced? The question is whether we are comfortable with corporations assuming the role of thought police - corporations that are not subject to the same discrimination standards that we hold our government(s) to. It sounds to me like "informed world view" as a general standard for evaluation really just means "whatever world view is in vogue at the time", and is designed as an exclusive criteria. Think of how many cultures, customs, ethnicities, sexualities, philosophies, etc, were previously not part of the acceptable, "informed" world view, as well as those that previously were and are now considered taboo or unethical.
- prolepunk 8y ago
  I just outlined the criteria in the comment above -- if you believe people who don't look like you aren't people, and don't deserve the same rights and shouldn't exist, you're a Nazi. Yes "whatever world view is in vogue at the time" is the informed world view. I wouldn't want to live by the rules of Genghis Khan, or the rules of Germany in late 1930s. All of the things that are now considered taboo or unethical are taboo or unethical. For example, can you justify slavery through this lens?
  - slavik81 8y ago
    There are lots of things that are widely believed unethical for no particularly good reason. People are raised into a set of beliefs and they mostly stick with them, especially when there's rarely a reason to re-examine those beliefs. One example of something widely believed to be unethical is nudity. There is a belief that seeing a human being in its natural, naked state is inherently harmful and that nakedness itself is shameful. I'm not a nudist; I very much prefer wearing clothing. I just think it's a good example, because few people ever think about it. Everybody just wears clothing and only weirdos don't. The mechanism by which it causes harm is rarely examined. (The increasing reverence towards natural things in recent years suggests to me that people may be more open to reexamining that belief, making it a more effective example.) It's not that the majority are always wrong. Just sometimes. And not just in the past or in some other society.
    - prolepunk 8y ago
      Except we're talking about Nazis and not nudists. As a society we are re-examining those beliefs and something that used to be considered normal (i.e. slavery) is now considered grossly unjust. Just because someone is old, that person is not entitled to spew their racist, white nationalist beliefs. I will repeat this again, I haven't hear a single instance of nudists building death camps.
      - slavik81 8y ago
        I don't disagree that there are differences. I'm trying to point out that if you merely demand that Facebook take sides, they will probably take the side of the majority. Most of the time that's fine—like in the case of Nazis—but sometimes it will result in them suppressing minorities that deserve to be heard.
  - sheepmullet 8y ago
    > if you believe people who don't look like you aren't people, and don't deserve the same rights and shouldn't exist, you're a Nazi. The only people in the US who believe this in any significant number are the pro-abortionists. Should we shut down any positive comments on abortion?
- geofft 8y ago
  I am certainly more comfortable with a corporation assuming the role of thought police than with a corporation saying "Sorry, we are bound to promote things happening that everyone knows will be terrible for the world." Corporate thought police are certainly bad, but not the worst possible thing - since they are corporate thought police instead of governmental ones, there will be ways of communicating without them (and I already have positions I hold but do not feel comfortable expressing publicly, and if I want to share them with people I will need to find private and point-to-point means of conveying them, and I already have means of doing that). And since they are corporations subject to government, there are already positions that you cannot post on social media without getting in legal trouble of various sorts. And at least with thought police, you have a hope - maybe a slim one, but a hope nonetheless - of convincing them that your thoughts are fine and should not be policed. (with corporate thought police, you can also try outcompeting them, of course.) With a corporation that feels obligated to promote all thoughts no matter how awful, they will not shut down something that 99.9% of society believes is dangerous, for any reason.
DoofusOfDeath 8y ago
I'm going to try making a counterpoint by playing devil's advocate for a moment. Please try to see the larger point I'm making, rather than the particulars: Abortion is monsterous - it's genocide on an unfathomable scale. Homosexuality is monsterous - it's unnatural and sinful. Promoting (Christianity | Islam | athiesm) is monsterous - those belief systems lead to death and destruction. Promoting (democracy | socialism) is monsterous - it leads to massive suffering inside and outside our borders. Main point: Different people have diametrically different ideas of what's monsterous. I'm pretty sure you don't want to live in a land where some of those definitions are used to limit your speech.
- prolepunk 8y ago
  This is not wholly surprising, this site is full of hot takes of devil's advocates. This arguments ignore a ton of details most importantly the relationship between oppressed and oppressors. When Nazis are calling for extermination of people, they aren't going after white men. In every example you have, there's oppressed group that have their rights that you completely ignore. Abortion -- women right to control their body (the right that's being constantly challenged) Homosexuality -- do I even need to make an argument here. Religion -- it's not about any particular religion, it's oppressing religions minority by majority i.e Christians in predominantly Islamic country and vise versa. Promoting democracy/socialism -- basically vilifying alternative form of government by people in power by cherry-picking examples (because no one would dare to criticize that argument). My point is, Nazis are toxic and are always vilify and making scapegoats from people who are not in power, because those people can't answer. I don't want to live in a land where it's okay to say we should kill this particular group of people, that speech be acceptable and eventually carried out.
  - bena 8y ago
    You do realize that there are plenty of people, atheists and women included, who feel that abortion is genocide and that the people who advocate for abortion are advocating for the extermination of people, right? The way they see it, a living person was created and attached to someone against their will and now the one who did that gets to just outright murder them because it's "inconvenient" under the guise of "right to control their body". Basically if I took out your kidneys, attached you to me so my kidneys would filter your blood as well, then decided I didn't want to do that anymore, so I let you die. (I know the example is kind of fucked, mainly because there is no good analog to pregnancy). There's all sorts of things going on with the abortion debate that I can't really get behind anyone who frames it as a "simple" debate. I currently side with the opinion that it's a private matter and only the people involved should be the ones to wrestle with whatever ethical considerations that are tied up with it. The decision is too big for anyone to decide for someone else. Regardless, his point isn't that those opinions he posted are correct, but what would happen if a group took power that pushed that view and "deplatformed" dissent. Because they had the "correct" view. No one actually thinks they're wrong.

Because when people like this aren't silenced and laughed at, from some angles they seem like normal people and not the ones promoting monstrous ideas. No everyone have well informed world view.

pandler 8y ago

Which sounds like a fine argument to make when dealing with the more extreme cases, but where do you draw the line of who gets silenced? The question is whether we are comfortable with corporations assuming the role of thought police - corporations that are not subject to the same discrimination standards that we hold our government(s) to. It sounds to me like "informed world view" as a general standard for evaluation really just means "whatever world view is in vogue at the time", and is designed as an exclusive criteria. Think of how many cultures, customs, ethnicities, sexualities, philosophies, etc, were previously not part of the acceptable, "informed" world view, as well as those that previously were and are now considered taboo or unethical.

prolepunk 8y ago
I just outlined the criteria in the comment above -- if you believe people who don't look like you aren't people, and don't deserve the same rights and shouldn't exist, you're a Nazi. Yes "whatever world view is in vogue at the time" is the informed world view. I wouldn't want to live by the rules of Genghis Khan, or the rules of Germany in late 1930s. All of the things that are now considered taboo or unethical are taboo or unethical. For example, can you justify slavery through this lens?
- slavik81 8y ago
  There are lots of things that are widely believed unethical for no particularly good reason. People are raised into a set of beliefs and they mostly stick with them, especially when there's rarely a reason to re-examine those beliefs. One example of something widely believed to be unethical is nudity. There is a belief that seeing a human being in its natural, naked state is inherently harmful and that nakedness itself is shameful. I'm not a nudist; I very much prefer wearing clothing. I just think it's a good example, because few people ever think about it. Everybody just wears clothing and only weirdos don't. The mechanism by which it causes harm is rarely examined. (The increasing reverence towards natural things in recent years suggests to me that people may be more open to reexamining that belief, making it a more effective example.) It's not that the majority are always wrong. Just sometimes. And not just in the past or in some other society.
  - prolepunk 8y ago
    Except we're talking about Nazis and not nudists. As a society we are re-examining those beliefs and something that used to be considered normal (i.e. slavery) is now considered grossly unjust. Just because someone is old, that person is not entitled to spew their racist, white nationalist beliefs. I will repeat this again, I haven't hear a single instance of nudists building death camps.
    - slavik81 8y ago
      I don't disagree that there are differences. I'm trying to point out that if you merely demand that Facebook take sides, they will probably take the side of the majority. Most of the time that's fine—like in the case of Nazis—but sometimes it will result in them suppressing minorities that deserve to be heard.
- sheepmullet 8y ago
  > if you believe people who don't look like you aren't people, and don't deserve the same rights and shouldn't exist, you're a Nazi. The only people in the US who believe this in any significant number are the pro-abortionists. Should we shut down any positive comments on abortion?
geofft 8y ago
I am certainly more comfortable with a corporation assuming the role of thought police than with a corporation saying "Sorry, we are bound to promote things happening that everyone knows will be terrible for the world." Corporate thought police are certainly bad, but not the worst possible thing - since they are corporate thought police instead of governmental ones, there will be ways of communicating without them (and I already have positions I hold but do not feel comfortable expressing publicly, and if I want to share them with people I will need to find private and point-to-point means of conveying them, and I already have means of doing that). And since they are corporations subject to government, there are already positions that you cannot post on social media without getting in legal trouble of various sorts. And at least with thought police, you have a hope - maybe a slim one, but a hope nonetheless - of convincing them that your thoughts are fine and should not be policed. (with corporate thought police, you can also try outcompeting them, of course.) With a corporation that feels obligated to promote all thoughts no matter how awful, they will not shut down something that 99.9% of society believes is dangerous, for any reason.

DoofusOfDeath 8y ago

I'm going to try making a counterpoint by playing devil's advocate for a moment. Please try to see the larger point I'm making, rather than the particulars: Abortion is monsterous - it's genocide on an unfathomable scale. Homosexuality is monsterous - it's unnatural and sinful. Promoting (Christianity | Islam | athiesm) is monsterous - those belief systems lead to death and destruction. Promoting (democracy | socialism) is monsterous - it leads to massive suffering inside and outside our borders. Main point: Different people have diametrically different ideas of what's monsterous. I'm pretty sure you don't want to live in a land where some of those definitions are used to limit your speech.

prolepunk 8y ago
This is not wholly surprising, this site is full of hot takes of devil's advocates. This arguments ignore a ton of details most importantly the relationship between oppressed and oppressors. When Nazis are calling for extermination of people, they aren't going after white men. In every example you have, there's oppressed group that have their rights that you completely ignore. Abortion -- women right to control their body (the right that's being constantly challenged) Homosexuality -- do I even need to make an argument here. Religion -- it's not about any particular religion, it's oppressing religions minority by majority i.e Christians in predominantly Islamic country and vise versa. Promoting democracy/socialism -- basically vilifying alternative form of government by people in power by cherry-picking examples (because no one would dare to criticize that argument). My point is, Nazis are toxic and are always vilify and making scapegoats from people who are not in power, because those people can't answer. I don't want to live in a land where it's okay to say we should kill this particular group of people, that speech be acceptable and eventually carried out.
- bena 8y ago
  You do realize that there are plenty of people, atheists and women included, who feel that abortion is genocide and that the people who advocate for abortion are advocating for the extermination of people, right? The way they see it, a living person was created and attached to someone against their will and now the one who did that gets to just outright murder them because it's "inconvenient" under the guise of "right to control their body". Basically if I took out your kidneys, attached you to me so my kidneys would filter your blood as well, then decided I didn't want to do that anymore, so I let you die. (I know the example is kind of fucked, mainly because there is no good analog to pregnancy). There's all sorts of things going on with the abortion debate that I can't really get behind anyone who frames it as a "simple" debate. I currently side with the opinion that it's a private matter and only the people involved should be the ones to wrestle with whatever ethical considerations that are tied up with it. The decision is too big for anyone to decide for someone else. Regardless, his point isn't that those opinions he posted are correct, but what would happen if a group took power that pushed that view and "deplatformed" dissent. Because they had the "correct" view. No one actually thinks they're wrong.