6 ms·

> Let me simplify further, in the face of your ad hominem: Sorry? I attacked your phrasing and logic, not YOU. Its like you're wanting to get angry at nothing.

> Let me simplify further, in the face of your ad hominem: Sorry? I attacked your phrasing and logic, not YOU. Its like you're wanting to get angry at nothing. I'm done here if you don't want to act civilized.

jachee 8y ago
Okay, I clearly got a bit too passionate. Let me try and clarify, civilly: Hate speech is always an attack. Whether it's overt (Westboro, the N-word, Swastikas, homophobic slurs, etc.) or more subtle ("the 14 words", "88", etc). Supporting the "right" of someone to use hate speech is supporting their right to attack (and thus violate the rights of) others. Whereas, by preventing those attacks, nothing of value is lost, and real harm is prevented.
- yourbandsucks 8y ago
  Absolutism is also dangerous. You're dividing the world into 'good' and 'bad' and giving no quarter to the bad. That can go sideways. You think any of the monsters of history thought they were the bad guys?
  - jachee 8y ago
    Thus, Popper's Paradox of Tolerance.[0] [0]https://www.goodreads.com/work/quotes/6492090-the-open-society-and-its-enemies https://www.goodreads.com/work/quotes/6492090-the-open-socie...
    - deleted 8y ago
      [deleted]
    - deleted 8y ago
      [deleted]
- Kapow 8y ago
  By these rules, you just committed an attack and violated the rights of others by saying "88". If you were banned to prevent this attack, nothing of value would be lost. Oh, "but I wasn't SAYING it" you say? Who judges whether hate speech is excused by context? Facebook interns? AI algorithms? Sorry, the algorithm has pronounced you guilty, you are now banned. That is the world you would create.
  - jachee 8y ago
    Okay, nevermind then. Nothing to be done. Thinking about this is too hard! Let's just throw in the towel folks!
    - orthecreedence 8y ago
      Or maybe social media companies get rid of any kind of algorithmic selection. Feeds are completely ordered by date. You can follow/unfollow people who you like or dislike. If you don't want to be offended by jackasses, don't go on the public feeds. That said, you've shot down a lot of people's arguments but I haven't seen you promote a sensible alternative. Given your personal belief framework and given the first amendment, what do you see as a solution to this problem?
      - jachee 8y ago
        I don't claim to know the answer, but I firmly believe that if all the energy being poured into protecting hate were instead put into eradicating it, the world could only become a better place.
        orthecreedence 8y ago
        > I firmly believe that if all the energy being poured into protecting hate were instead put into eradicating it, the world could only become a better place HOW? How do you eradicate hate speech? What is hate speech? Anything that makes you feel bad? So do you single-handedly decide what speech is ok or not? You're lambasting people's protection for free speech as "protecting hate speech" (which is a false dichotomy) and not offering any alternatives. I don't really get what the point of what you're saying is other than "This upsets me." And that's fine if hate speech upsets you, but understand that it upsets other people too, even if those people support free speech as defined by the US bill of rights and legal framework. I guess what I'm saying is...stop complaining unless you start examining the problem critically (ok, you don't like hate speech... who enforces what hate speech is? how is it enforced? etc. right now you're attacking free speech but not offering ANY compelling or thought-out alternatives) and for the love of everything stop thinking in absolutes. You seem to have forced yourself into black and white thinking. That's not only counterproductive, it's dangerous. People who think in absolutes are targets to become tools of hate. If you don't start seeing nuance in things, you will be easily swayed and manipulated by anyone who has a Nice Shiny Solution to "end hate speech."
- franciscrick1 8y ago
  You think anything that is an attack should be illegal?

jachee 8y ago

Okay, I clearly got a bit too passionate. Let me try and clarify, civilly: Hate speech is always an attack. Whether it's overt (Westboro, the N-word, Swastikas, homophobic slurs, etc.) or more subtle ("the 14 words", "88", etc). Supporting the "right" of someone to use hate speech is supporting their right to attack (and thus violate the rights of) others. Whereas, by preventing those attacks, nothing of value is lost, and real harm is prevented.

yourbandsucks 8y ago
Absolutism is also dangerous. You're dividing the world into 'good' and 'bad' and giving no quarter to the bad. That can go sideways. You think any of the monsters of history thought they were the bad guys?
- jachee 8y ago
  Thus, Popper's Paradox of Tolerance.[0] [0]https://www.goodreads.com/work/quotes/6492090-the-open-society-and-its-enemies https://www.goodreads.com/work/quotes/6492090-the-open-socie...
  - deleted 8y ago
    [deleted]
  - deleted 8y ago
    [deleted]
Kapow 8y ago
By these rules, you just committed an attack and violated the rights of others by saying "88". If you were banned to prevent this attack, nothing of value would be lost. Oh, "but I wasn't SAYING it" you say? Who judges whether hate speech is excused by context? Facebook interns? AI algorithms? Sorry, the algorithm has pronounced you guilty, you are now banned. That is the world you would create.
- jachee 8y ago
  Okay, nevermind then. Nothing to be done. Thinking about this is too hard! Let's just throw in the towel folks!
  - orthecreedence 8y ago
    Or maybe social media companies get rid of any kind of algorithmic selection. Feeds are completely ordered by date. You can follow/unfollow people who you like or dislike. If you don't want to be offended by jackasses, don't go on the public feeds. That said, you've shot down a lot of people's arguments but I haven't seen you promote a sensible alternative. Given your personal belief framework and given the first amendment, what do you see as a solution to this problem?
    - jachee 8y ago
      I don't claim to know the answer, but I firmly believe that if all the energy being poured into protecting hate were instead put into eradicating it, the world could only become a better place.
      - orthecreedence 8y ago
        > I firmly believe that if all the energy being poured into protecting hate were instead put into eradicating it, the world could only become a better place HOW? How do you eradicate hate speech? What is hate speech? Anything that makes you feel bad? So do you single-handedly decide what speech is ok or not? You're lambasting people's protection for free speech as "protecting hate speech" (which is a false dichotomy) and not offering any alternatives. I don't really get what the point of what you're saying is other than "This upsets me." And that's fine if hate speech upsets you, but understand that it upsets other people too, even if those people support free speech as defined by the US bill of rights and legal framework. I guess what I'm saying is...stop complaining unless you start examining the problem critically (ok, you don't like hate speech... who enforces what hate speech is? how is it enforced? etc. right now you're attacking free speech but not offering ANY compelling or thought-out alternatives) and for the love of everything stop thinking in absolutes. You seem to have forced yourself into black and white thinking. That's not only counterproductive, it's dangerous. People who think in absolutes are targets to become tools of hate. If you don't start seeing nuance in things, you will be easily swayed and manipulated by anyone who has a Nice Shiny Solution to "end hate speech."
franciscrick1 8y ago
You think anything that is an attack should be illegal?