10 ms·

The problem, as described in this article, is that some people have good faith beliefs, respectfully expressed, that are nevertheless so repugnant to others tha

The problem, as described in this article, is that some people have good faith beliefs, respectfully expressed, that are nevertheless so repugnant to others that you will be tarred for not censoring them.

komali2 8y ago
>is that some people have good faith beliefs, respectfully expressed, that are nevertheless so repugnant to others that you will be tarred for not censoring them. I'm skeptical of this - I've never seen a polite racist argument, for example, or a polite homophobic one. The closest I've seen is a post riddled with condescension - something along the lines of "you don't understand, I'm trying to save your soul from the sin of homosexuality."
- TeMPOraL 8y ago
  Go visit the Culture War threads then. The article states that the CW threads were full of these kinds of arguments, so if you want to see examples, you know where to go.
  - komali2 8y ago
    Yea, that's what I'm trying right now, nothing good yet though. I'll keep scanning here and there though.
    - deleted 8y ago
      [deleted]
- dx87 8y ago
  I saw it happen on the thread posted yesterday about companies pulling their advertisements from YouTube over pedophilia concerns. The user made a comment that as disgusting as it was, the people sharing timestamps and playlists of public videos of underage girls shouldn't be punished, since they aren't harming anybody and they didn't choose to be attracted to children. The post seemed like it was made in good faith, but because it was against the "ban them and report them to the police" mentality, it was immediately heavily downvoted.
  - barrkel 8y ago
    Child pornography convictions have increasingly relied on the concept of psychic harm to the victim from knowing other people are getting off on the material. It is reiterated that viewing child porn rather than producing or buying it, is not victimless. It's only a small step from there to get to viewing innocent videos turns children into victims if the interest is sexual; if, one day, the children (possibly now adult) find out about the creepy people on the internet, they will suffer the harm.
- 50656E6973 8y ago
  I've been racially slandered for posting MLK quotes, even though I'm not black (they assumed I was). Conversely I've also been called a racist/bigot for claiming white people didn't invent racism/slavery, or that statistical differences in social groups shouldn't automatically be attributed to oppression, or that Frederick Douglass is evidence of how someone can free themselves from oppression. They obviously had never studied MLK, Frederick Douglass, or world history, though I'd bet they had spent plenty of time watching cable news and shallow mass media. The reason they called me those things was not because I was actually espousing hatred, but rather because I was suggesting something antithetical to their ideology.
  - goatlover 8y ago
    > rather because I was suggesting something antithetical to their ideology. Ideological differences are a major source of arguments turning ugly and lots of downvotes, if you disagree with whatever majority in that particular forum.
  - nitwit005 8y ago
    In general it seems that people are tolerating smaller and smaller deviations from their ideological views. While I'm not against calling people out at times, it does seem the truth is increasingly seen as unacceptable.
  - komali2 8y ago
    >Conversely I've also been called a racist/bigot for claiming white people didn't invent racism/slavery, or that statistical differences in social groups shouldn't automatically be attributed to oppression, Hmm. That sounds like it can be frustrating, but I can see how it can happen. For example - what's the point of claiming "white people didn't invent slavery?" I can't think of any reason that doesn't involve a blanket statement about either white people or some other race, which would be prejudgement/prejudice by definition. Hence, smacks of racism. Similar for statistical differences in social groups - dangerous territory as it is what "rational racists" try to do all the time. I use those statistics all the time though to demonstrate that it's impossible to prove that a group of people have a certain average IQ or some other grab bag trait because of race, due to noise from other variables like socioeconomic status, local culture, local healthcare availability, local government policy, etc.
- deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]
- mikeash 8y ago
  Part of the problem is that too many people think “polite” just means “no profanity or name-calling.” It is impossible to respectfully argue for a racist or homophobic position. The very nature of what you’re arguing for is that some people are inherently less than others, which is the opposite of respect. But if you state such an argument without using naughty words, a lot of people will misinterpret that as respectful and demand that it be given respect in turn.
  - malvosenior 8y ago
    A lot of people will extend the definition of "racist" to include things they don't like but would not be considered racist by most people. For instance there are still people who think the Covington teens are racist even after the additional footage became available. I've seen plenty of accusations of racism against people who say the teens are innocent.
    - mikeash 8y ago
      People will make bad arguments on all sides. This is not a surprise, and is not really related to my point.
      - malvosenior 8y ago
        > It is impossible to respectfully argue for a racist or homophobic position. My point is that in 2019 this statement has no meaning because there are wide swaths of the audience (not just fringe elements) that will label nearly everything "racist". The main point of contention in this thread is whether you should ban unpopular opinions or let them stand on their own. Racist comments are and should be unpopular but when the definition racism is widened to include half the population then censoring "racists" and hitting a bunch of false positives becomes much more damaging that not censoring "racists" and letting actual racists expose their own ignorant thinking.
        mikeash 8y ago
        I think that statement only has no meaning if you are contending that I am one of those people who labels nearly everything “racist.”
- deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]
- rukuu001 8y ago
  Polite racist arguments are rare these days, but I've heard them, as well as polite homophobic arguments. I won't bother repeating them here, but the point is that those arguments are rarely made in good faith. Usually it's someone making a hateful argument cleverly to make it more palatable.
eschaton 8y ago
I don’t understand why people think giving space and respect to odious beliefs is somehow virtuous. What it does is normalize those beliefs and enable them to propagate while simultaneously exhausting those who oppose them. See Sarte’s comments on Anti-Semitism; the holders of odious beliefs are generally not “playing the same game” as those who oppose them, and giving space to all ideas, no matter how awful, is actually conferring an advantage on the worst.
- haberman 8y ago
  > the holders of odious beliefs are generally not “playing the same game” as those who oppose them Maybe a few years ago I would have found this argument convincing. But here is the current state of the Internet (from the article): > it was always that the the thread was “dominated by” or “only had” or “was an echo chamber for” homophobic transphobic alt-right neo-Nazis, which always grew into the claim that the subreddit was dominated by homophobic etc neo-Nazis, which always grew into the claim that the SSC community was dominated by homophobic etc neo-Nazis, which always grew into the claim that I personally was a homophobic etc neo-Nazi of them all. I am a pro-gay Jew who has dated trans people and votes pretty much straight Democrat. I lost distant family in the Holocaust. You can imagine how much fun this was for me. I think it's hard to claim that even people with truly Anti-Semitic beliefs are somehow playing a more deceptive game than this, or appealing more to people's biases and irrationality.
- berberous 8y ago
  Who defines what beliefs are odious? The point is not to convince the person you are talking to, which is very difficult given how much people stick to their political beliefs, but to convince the lurking third party, who has weakly held opinions. If they can see in the debate that one person has the stronger argument, you can convince that third person. If they see one side refuse to debate, angrily yell, and banish the other to places like the_donald, well, maybe the undecided lurkers will wonder if perhaps the person got angry because they had no good counter-argument, decide to go explore a place like the_donald, or some other echo chamber where they just become more convinced, that also has no counter-acting voices of reason. The people in the_donald agree with you by the way, and don't give space or respect to people with odious blue tribe beliefs. Sunlight is the best disinfectant.

komali2 8y ago

>is that some people have good faith beliefs, respectfully expressed, that are nevertheless so repugnant to others that you will be tarred for not censoring them. I'm skeptical of this - I've never seen a polite racist argument, for example, or a polite homophobic one. The closest I've seen is a post riddled with condescension - something along the lines of "you don't understand, I'm trying to save your soul from the sin of homosexuality."

TeMPOraL 8y ago
Go visit the Culture War threads then. The article states that the CW threads were full of these kinds of arguments, so if you want to see examples, you know where to go.
- komali2 8y ago
  Yea, that's what I'm trying right now, nothing good yet though. I'll keep scanning here and there though.
  - deleted 8y ago
    [deleted]
dx87 8y ago
I saw it happen on the thread posted yesterday about companies pulling their advertisements from YouTube over pedophilia concerns. The user made a comment that as disgusting as it was, the people sharing timestamps and playlists of public videos of underage girls shouldn't be punished, since they aren't harming anybody and they didn't choose to be attracted to children. The post seemed like it was made in good faith, but because it was against the "ban them and report them to the police" mentality, it was immediately heavily downvoted.
- barrkel 8y ago
  Child pornography convictions have increasingly relied on the concept of psychic harm to the victim from knowing other people are getting off on the material. It is reiterated that viewing child porn rather than producing or buying it, is not victimless. It's only a small step from there to get to viewing innocent videos turns children into victims if the interest is sexual; if, one day, the children (possibly now adult) find out about the creepy people on the internet, they will suffer the harm.
50656E6973 8y ago
I've been racially slandered for posting MLK quotes, even though I'm not black (they assumed I was). Conversely I've also been called a racist/bigot for claiming white people didn't invent racism/slavery, or that statistical differences in social groups shouldn't automatically be attributed to oppression, or that Frederick Douglass is evidence of how someone can free themselves from oppression. They obviously had never studied MLK, Frederick Douglass, or world history, though I'd bet they had spent plenty of time watching cable news and shallow mass media. The reason they called me those things was not because I was actually espousing hatred, but rather because I was suggesting something antithetical to their ideology.
- goatlover 8y ago
  > rather because I was suggesting something antithetical to their ideology. Ideological differences are a major source of arguments turning ugly and lots of downvotes, if you disagree with whatever majority in that particular forum.
- nitwit005 8y ago
  In general it seems that people are tolerating smaller and smaller deviations from their ideological views. While I'm not against calling people out at times, it does seem the truth is increasingly seen as unacceptable.
- komali2 8y ago
  >Conversely I've also been called a racist/bigot for claiming white people didn't invent racism/slavery, or that statistical differences in social groups shouldn't automatically be attributed to oppression, Hmm. That sounds like it can be frustrating, but I can see how it can happen. For example - what's the point of claiming "white people didn't invent slavery?" I can't think of any reason that doesn't involve a blanket statement about either white people or some other race, which would be prejudgement/prejudice by definition. Hence, smacks of racism. Similar for statistical differences in social groups - dangerous territory as it is what "rational racists" try to do all the time. I use those statistics all the time though to demonstrate that it's impossible to prove that a group of people have a certain average IQ or some other grab bag trait because of race, due to noise from other variables like socioeconomic status, local culture, local healthcare availability, local government policy, etc.
deleted 8y ago
[deleted]
mikeash 8y ago
Part of the problem is that too many people think “polite” just means “no profanity or name-calling.” It is impossible to respectfully argue for a racist or homophobic position. The very nature of what you’re arguing for is that some people are inherently less than others, which is the opposite of respect. But if you state such an argument without using naughty words, a lot of people will misinterpret that as respectful and demand that it be given respect in turn.
- malvosenior 8y ago
  A lot of people will extend the definition of "racist" to include things they don't like but would not be considered racist by most people. For instance there are still people who think the Covington teens are racist even after the additional footage became available. I've seen plenty of accusations of racism against people who say the teens are innocent.
  - mikeash 8y ago
    People will make bad arguments on all sides. This is not a surprise, and is not really related to my point.
    - malvosenior 8y ago
      > It is impossible to respectfully argue for a racist or homophobic position. My point is that in 2019 this statement has no meaning because there are wide swaths of the audience (not just fringe elements) that will label nearly everything "racist". The main point of contention in this thread is whether you should ban unpopular opinions or let them stand on their own. Racist comments are and should be unpopular but when the definition racism is widened to include half the population then censoring "racists" and hitting a bunch of false positives becomes much more damaging that not censoring "racists" and letting actual racists expose their own ignorant thinking.
      - mikeash 8y ago
        I think that statement only has no meaning if you are contending that I am one of those people who labels nearly everything “racist.”
deleted 8y ago
[deleted]
rukuu001 8y ago
Polite racist arguments are rare these days, but I've heard them, as well as polite homophobic arguments. I won't bother repeating them here, but the point is that those arguments are rarely made in good faith. Usually it's someone making a hateful argument cleverly to make it more palatable.

eschaton 8y ago

I don’t understand why people think giving space and respect to odious beliefs is somehow virtuous. What it does is normalize those beliefs and enable them to propagate while simultaneously exhausting those who oppose them. See Sarte’s comments on Anti-Semitism; the holders of odious beliefs are generally not “playing the same game” as those who oppose them, and giving space to all ideas, no matter how awful, is actually conferring an advantage on the worst.

haberman 8y ago
> the holders of odious beliefs are generally not “playing the same game” as those who oppose them Maybe a few years ago I would have found this argument convincing. But here is the current state of the Internet (from the article): > it was always that the the thread was “dominated by” or “only had” or “was an echo chamber for” homophobic transphobic alt-right neo-Nazis, which always grew into the claim that the subreddit was dominated by homophobic etc neo-Nazis, which always grew into the claim that the SSC community was dominated by homophobic etc neo-Nazis, which always grew into the claim that I personally was a homophobic etc neo-Nazi of them all. I am a pro-gay Jew who has dated trans people and votes pretty much straight Democrat. I lost distant family in the Holocaust. You can imagine how much fun this was for me. I think it's hard to claim that even people with truly Anti-Semitic beliefs are somehow playing a more deceptive game than this, or appealing more to people's biases and irrationality.
berberous 8y ago
Who defines what beliefs are odious? The point is not to convince the person you are talking to, which is very difficult given how much people stick to their political beliefs, but to convince the lurking third party, who has weakly held opinions. If they can see in the debate that one person has the stronger argument, you can convince that third person. If they see one side refuse to debate, angrily yell, and banish the other to places like the_donald, well, maybe the undecided lurkers will wonder if perhaps the person got angry because they had no good counter-argument, decide to go explore a place like the_donald, or some other echo chamber where they just become more convinced, that also has no counter-acting voices of reason. The people in the_donald agree with you by the way, and don't give space or respect to people with odious blue tribe beliefs. Sunlight is the best disinfectant.