3 ms·

The problem with the 'destabilization' argument is that it's largely been caused by the reaction to the random Twitter/Facebook trolls, not the trolls themselve

by Natsu 8y ago

The problem with the 'destabilization' argument is that it's largely been caused by the reaction to the random Twitter/Facebook trolls, not the trolls themselves. Seeing people flip out and want to ban free speech because of some social media nonsense is a far more powerful reason to mistrust a group than anything they could have actually posted against them on Twitter or Facebook to begin with. If you don't believe me, take a look at some of the actual memes they've been posting: https://imgur.com/a/ZjQ3PLS https://imgur.com/a/ZjQ3PLS Can anyone tell me which of these memes presents an existential threat to democracy and how?

mschuster91 8y ago
Seeing people flip out and want to ban free speech because of some social media nonsense No one wants to "ban free speech". There just need to be limitations. There is no valid reason for anyone (outside of art/education) to fly a Nazi flag, doing the Hitler salute or call for putting people into gas ovens, stoning them, raping them or whatever. Can anyone tell me which of these memes presents an existential threat to democracy and how? Uhhh... there is this thing called "freedom of religion". Calling for "no more mosques" runs directly contrary to this. And yes, people get riled up by these "memes" so hard they'll even burn down mosques or bomb them. It happens in Germany with increasing frequency. What these memes do is create a massive anti-Muslim, anti-refugee movement that sooner or later feels entitled to violence. Many of those people caught attacking refugee centers etc. are not classic neo-Nazis. They're ordinary citizens (http://www.spiegel.de/politik/deutschland/fluechtlingsheime-bundeskriminalamt-zaehlt-mehr-als-1000-attacken-a-1074448.html http://www.spiegel.de/politik/deutschland/fluechtlingsheime-...), often radicalized by social media.
- Natsu 8y ago
  > No one wants to "ban free speech". There just need to be limitations. The USA already has a narrow list of exceptions (true threats, defamation, etc.) and several of the examples you cite are utterly reprehensible, yet legally protected speech, so you're providing contradictory evidence here. Granted, you may be in Germany where the situation is different? Of course, if so, you would seem to be 'influencing US elections' by calling for this speech to be removed, so I'm not sure where that gets us. > And yes, people get riled up by these "memes" so hard they'll even burn down mosques or bomb them. I'm not aware of any country that won't jail people for threatening to do such things, and so they should.

by Natsu 8y ago

mschuster91 8y ago

Seeing people flip out and want to ban free speech because of some social media nonsense No one wants to "ban free speech". There just need to be limitations. There is no valid reason for anyone (outside of art/education) to fly a Nazi flag, doing the Hitler salute or call for putting people into gas ovens, stoning them, raping them or whatever. Can anyone tell me which of these memes presents an existential threat to democracy and how? Uhhh... there is this thing called "freedom of religion". Calling for "no more mosques" runs directly contrary to this. And yes, people get riled up by these "memes" so hard they'll even burn down mosques or bomb them. It happens in Germany with increasing frequency. What these memes do is create a massive anti-Muslim, anti-refugee movement that sooner or later feels entitled to violence. Many of those people caught attacking refugee centers etc. are not classic neo-Nazis. They're ordinary citizens (http://www.spiegel.de/politik/deutschland/fluechtlingsheime-bundeskriminalamt-zaehlt-mehr-als-1000-attacken-a-1074448.html http://www.spiegel.de/politik/deutschland/fluechtlingsheime-...), often radicalized by social media.

Natsu 8y ago
> No one wants to "ban free speech". There just need to be limitations. The USA already has a narrow list of exceptions (true threats, defamation, etc.) and several of the examples you cite are utterly reprehensible, yet legally protected speech, so you're providing contradictory evidence here. Granted, you may be in Germany where the situation is different? Of course, if so, you would seem to be 'influencing US elections' by calling for this speech to be removed, so I'm not sure where that gets us. > And yes, people get riled up by these "memes" so hard they'll even burn down mosques or bomb them. I'm not aware of any country that won't jail people for threatening to do such things, and so they should.