5 ms·

Hate speech laws, deplatforming, or political bans don't actually accomplish any of their stated goals. In the Weimar Republic, there were hate speech laws (htt

Hate speech laws, deplatforming, or political bans don't actually accomplish any of their stated goals. In the Weimar Republic, there were hate speech laws (https://www.newyorker.com/news/news-desk/copenhagen-speech-violence https://www.newyorker.com/news/news-desk/copenhagen-speech-v...). Relevant quote: "Researching my book, I looked into what actually happened in the Weimar Republic. I found that, contrary to what most people think, Weimar Germany did have hate-speech laws, and they were applied quite frequently. The assertion that Nazi propaganda played a significant role in mobilizing anti-Jewish sentiment is, of course, irrefutable. But to claim that the Holocaust could have been prevented if only anti-Semitic speech and Nazi propaganda had been banned has little basis in reality. Leading Nazis such as Joseph Goebbels, Theodor Fritsch, and Julius Streicher were all prosecuted for anti-Semitic speech. Streicher served two prison sentences. Rather than deterring the Nazis and countering anti-Semitism, the many court cases served as effective public-relations machinery, affording Streicher the kind of attention he would never have found in a climate of a free and open debate. In the years from 1923 to 1933, Der Stürmer [Streicher's newspaper] was either confiscated or editors taken to court on no fewer than thirty-six occasions. The more charges Streicher faced, the greater became the admiration of his supporters. The courts became an important platform for Streicher's campaign against the Jews. In the words of a present-day civil-rights campaigner, pre-Hitler Germany had laws very much like the anti-hate laws of today, and they were enforced with some vigor. As history so painfully testifies, this type of legislation proved ineffectual on the one occasion when there was a real argument for it." Nothing gets stopped by merely refusing to extend some small measure of legitimacy to whatever is deemed "bigoted". These policies and norms do not change minds, which is the skill these wannabe social engineers need to master.

Yoric 8y ago
I don't think it's about changing minds. If you look at the OP, it's about letting people participate on a specific discussion channel about gaming without being harassed, (either explicitly or implicitly) for their origin, gender, etc. Changing people's minds, as you mention, is a different problem entirely.
- beaconstudios 8y ago
  then ban harassment, racism, etc. Banning support for a politician is not a proxy for those things.
  - alphabettsy 8y ago
    True, but sometimes it might be if repeating the words of that politician would continually fall into that category.
jki275 8y ago
This is really important. Free and open debate exposes evil. Attempting to suppress debate gives it a platform and allows it to grow.
- alphabettsy 8y ago
  Please explain why so many everyday American’s are now repeating Trump’s lies? It’s certainly not for lack of the media pointing them out. There is just much more to it than that. I also didn’t see anyone making these arguments when YouTube and other platforms said they were going to target content the helps radicalize Muslims. There needs to be some middle ground where we can protect those being targeted and protect free-speech.
  - jki275 8y ago
    Did I say anything about Trump? My comment was a broad based comment about censorship of ideas. I don't recall YouTube making any such comment, perhaps I missed it. I don't think they've been successful if they even tried.
    - alphabettsy 8y ago
      Point me to evidence of broad censorship please because the discussion is about Trump. And if this is an issue that concerns you more broadly I’m not sure how you could possibly miss the dozens or hundreds of news stories about online platforms trying to combat extremism. https://www.cbsnews.com/news/several-tech-giants-join-forces-to-target-terrorist-propaganda-online/ https://www.cbsnews.com/news/several-tech-giants-join-forces...
      - jki275 8y ago
        deleted and reposted with the correct parent post -- not sure how I made that mistake above. There's been broad based discussion about most of the major web platforms deplatforming speech they don't agree with. If you haven't heard about it you've had your head stuck in the sand, or more likely you simply agree with it because you agree with deplatforming those with whom you disagree. That's not an abnormal thing, most people would gladly take away their political opponents' ability to speak if they could get away with it. That's why it's important we don't allow it -- it's the "when they came for..." argument. Your link talks about speech that specifically calls for violence and is credibly not covered by the first amendment. That's a bit different than the free exchange of ideas.
dragonwriter 8y ago
> Nothing gets stopped by merely refusing to extend some small measure of legitimacy to whatever is deemed "bigoted". The targets of bigotry being subjected to both the bigotry itself and the additional insult of the community they are participating in legitimizing it is, in fact, stopped by the community not legitimizing it. As that has long been a central purpose of RPG.net policy on acceptable participation, I think this particular rule is probably doing exactly what is intended. > These policies and norms do not change minds Perhaps, but in this case they aren't intended to, so that's not an argument against the policy.
- mooseburger 8y ago
  Still don't think it's wise to adopt a burying one's head in the sand approach. It just leaves the participants unprepared when confronting this "bigotry" in the real world, as inevitably they will.
  - dragonwriter 8y ago
    > Still don't think it's wise to adopt a burying one's head in the sand approach. No one is suggesting that, so I'm not sure why you are beating that strawman. > It just leaves the participants unprepared when confronting this "bigotry" in the real world, as inevitably they will. Just because I'm quite prepared to (and used to) dealing with inclement weather in the “real world” doesn't mean I forego HVAC in my home or places I rent for social gatherings where that weather isn't conducive to the purpose of the gathering.
FrozenVoid 8y ago
Invaluable insight: banning something you don't like reinforces its status as "something we can't handle except by censorship" which lends political weight to the ideas exposed. Without the opposition(actual debate/counter-arguments) to the idea, the idea becomes more like a "forbidden truth" to its supporters. They are in effect creating an echo chamber where the idea isn't opposed or ridiculed, but accepted as background truth and banned due being "politically incorrect".

Yoric 8y ago

I don't think it's about changing minds. If you look at the OP, it's about letting people participate on a specific discussion channel about gaming without being harassed, (either explicitly or implicitly) for their origin, gender, etc. Changing people's minds, as you mention, is a different problem entirely.

beaconstudios 8y ago
then ban harassment, racism, etc. Banning support for a politician is not a proxy for those things.
- alphabettsy 8y ago
  True, but sometimes it might be if repeating the words of that politician would continually fall into that category.

jki275 8y ago

This is really important. Free and open debate exposes evil. Attempting to suppress debate gives it a platform and allows it to grow.

alphabettsy 8y ago
Please explain why so many everyday American’s are now repeating Trump’s lies? It’s certainly not for lack of the media pointing them out. There is just much more to it than that. I also didn’t see anyone making these arguments when YouTube and other platforms said they were going to target content the helps radicalize Muslims. There needs to be some middle ground where we can protect those being targeted and protect free-speech.
- jki275 8y ago
  Did I say anything about Trump? My comment was a broad based comment about censorship of ideas. I don't recall YouTube making any such comment, perhaps I missed it. I don't think they've been successful if they even tried.
  - alphabettsy 8y ago
    Point me to evidence of broad censorship please because the discussion is about Trump. And if this is an issue that concerns you more broadly I’m not sure how you could possibly miss the dozens or hundreds of news stories about online platforms trying to combat extremism. https://www.cbsnews.com/news/several-tech-giants-join-forces-to-target-terrorist-propaganda-online/ https://www.cbsnews.com/news/several-tech-giants-join-forces...
    - jki275 8y ago
      deleted and reposted with the correct parent post -- not sure how I made that mistake above. There's been broad based discussion about most of the major web platforms deplatforming speech they don't agree with. If you haven't heard about it you've had your head stuck in the sand, or more likely you simply agree with it because you agree with deplatforming those with whom you disagree. That's not an abnormal thing, most people would gladly take away their political opponents' ability to speak if they could get away with it. That's why it's important we don't allow it -- it's the "when they came for..." argument. Your link talks about speech that specifically calls for violence and is credibly not covered by the first amendment. That's a bit different than the free exchange of ideas.

dragonwriter 8y ago

> Nothing gets stopped by merely refusing to extend some small measure of legitimacy to whatever is deemed "bigoted". The targets of bigotry being subjected to both the bigotry itself and the additional insult of the community they are participating in legitimizing it is, in fact, stopped by the community not legitimizing it. As that has long been a central purpose of RPG.net policy on acceptable participation, I think this particular rule is probably doing exactly what is intended. > These policies and norms do not change minds Perhaps, but in this case they aren't intended to, so that's not an argument against the policy.

mooseburger 8y ago
Still don't think it's wise to adopt a burying one's head in the sand approach. It just leaves the participants unprepared when confronting this "bigotry" in the real world, as inevitably they will.
- dragonwriter 8y ago
  > Still don't think it's wise to adopt a burying one's head in the sand approach. No one is suggesting that, so I'm not sure why you are beating that strawman. > It just leaves the participants unprepared when confronting this "bigotry" in the real world, as inevitably they will. Just because I'm quite prepared to (and used to) dealing with inclement weather in the “real world” doesn't mean I forego HVAC in my home or places I rent for social gatherings where that weather isn't conducive to the purpose of the gathering.

FrozenVoid 8y ago

Invaluable insight: banning something you don't like reinforces its status as "something we can't handle except by censorship" which lends political weight to the ideas exposed. Without the opposition(actual debate/counter-arguments) to the idea, the idea becomes more like a "forbidden truth" to its supporters. They are in effect creating an echo chamber where the idea isn't opposed or ridiculed, but accepted as background truth and banned due being "politically incorrect".