6 ms·

In other words, mental gymnastics to justify that your opponents are morally wrong and you're right, and because they're wrong, I have every right to stop them

by jamsch 7y ago

In other words, mental gymnastics to justify that your opponents are morally wrong and you're right, and because they're wrong, I have every right to stop them by any means necessary.

WAHa_06x36 7y ago
Same "mental gymnastics" that were used to go to war against nazis in WW2, yes. Was that wrong?
- kaolti 7y ago
  I rephrased this quite a few times, but I can't put this any other way: You are delusional.
  - WAHa_06x36 7y ago
    Not even a little. If you actually have an argument, do make it.
    - kaolti 7y ago
      Fair enough. Do you not see the problem with a monopoly deciding what is and isn't okay to say? You're comparing people who comment on websites to nazis? Did you not get the memo about the media calling everyone they don't like a nazi - including Pewdiepie? Do you really think these companies have YOUR best interest at heart instead of just siding with the political views of their shareholders?
      - zimpenfish 7y ago
        > including Pewdiepie? I think one Nazi-related mistake might be forgiveable. When it keeps happening, well, you've got to start thinking the tar on the brush is from the same pot.
      - WAHa_06x36 7y ago
        I am calling nazis nazis. Gab has a very large population of actual nazis. It also is the home of people who go shoot up large crowds of people for having the wrong religion. I feel pretty confident in calling these people bad names.
        DuskStar 7y ago
        I feel rather confident in saying that Gab does NOT have a very large population of actual nazis when using sane definitions for 'very large' and 'nazis'. Let's say... 10k and unironic 'Sieg Heil!'. Or, really, anywhere close to that. But if you use the media/leftist definition of 'nazi', which seems to be 'anyone to have ever made a politically incorrect joke or to have associated with the same', then OF COURSE you'll find a very large population of nazis. But you'll find that anywhere.
        belltaco 7y ago
        There are actually very few jokes on Voat or Gab. Also, neo-Nazis are different from actual Nazis.
      - untog 7y ago
        Firefox and Chrome can't both be a monopoly.
        Ygg2 7y ago
        Chrome is a monopoly. Firefox is just a backbench player at this point.
        ShrinkingWild 7y ago
        What resources have chrome monopolised to prevent other browsers from being provided? If chrome is a monopoly, why can I just go download firefox or opera or internet explorer? Chrome isn't a monopoly, it's just the most popular/best on the market at the moment.
        Ygg2 7y ago
        Google used its influence via Web Search to expand into the field of Web Browsers. So Google used it's Web presence to recommend Chrome. Additionally, Google used it's Web Services (e.g. Google Mail, Google Docs, YouTube) to nudge users in the direction of Chrome. If YouTube works best with Chrome, people will flock to it. Finally, Chrome might be the popular choice, but the most popular choice can be quite heinous in other ways.
        ShrinkingWild 7y ago
        Yes, Google promoted themselves on their own services, what's the problem with that? The influence gained from their prowess in web search was legitimate, I don't see a problem with them leveraging that. If chrome was garbage it wouldn't have helped. And yes, Google's products and services work best inside Google's browser. There's no problem there either, they can stop you using them in other browsers completely if they like, it's their property to do with as they please. You're free not to use chrome or any of Google's services, there are other options, so Google is not a monopoly.
        7y ago
      - belltaco 7y ago
        >including Pewdiepie Didn't he pay third worlders money to hold up signs saying "death to all jews" ? Isn't that what the Nazis tried to do, somewhat successfully? The media is supposed to like him for things like that or what?
        forgottenpass 7y ago
        >Isn't that what the Nazis tried to do, somewhat successfully? No. The Nazis did not post spicy jokes about genocide to the internet. They committed genocide. Slight difference.
        kaolti 7y ago
        How weird is it that this needs pointing out.
        belltaco 7y ago
        Calling for genocide is a spicy joke? How does calling for killing an entire group of people sound funny to you? Not to mention paying really poor people in the third world to hold up offensive things, I guess exploiting poor people also sounds funny to you.
- Ygg2 7y ago
  If you think the current crop of neo-nazis has the same clout and power as the WW2 ones, I have several bridges to sell you.
- ShrinkingWild 7y ago
  I think the main difference here is that the nazi's were actually doing bad things as well as saying bad things. In this case, bar the rare exception by individuals, these are people who are vocal that they think they're superior based on a superficial biological trait and nothing more.
  - deleted 7y ago
    [deleted]
  - dkns 7y ago
    Nazis started with just saying bad things as well.
    - ShrinkingWild 7y ago
      Nazis also drank water and some probably even had pets. A lot of things started because people have said bad things, a lot of things also haven't started even though some people said bad things. The problem is something has to start and in order for that to happen, action has to be taken. Taking action based on the fact that some bad people one time said the same things is a bad idea, you're initiating the actions and inevitably they'll respond with more than just the words they started with.
- repolfx 7y ago
  The USA didn't go to war against the Nazis until they had gone well beyond even the most terrible actions, let alone speech. Almost all of Europe had already been conquered, the last holdout in the UK was getting pounded daily and the US still didn't join until attacked directly. The core difference between then and now is that America of the mid 20th century didn't believe ideas were inherently dangerous - even the communist threat led to at worst the McCarthy hearings which are universally regarded now as a stain on America's history. What we see today is lots of Valley Ivy League graduate types who are convinced that reading a few tweets of the wrong kind wipes people's brains and literally turns them into the third Reich, in ways that nobody can stop or control. But there's no evidence for this viewpoint, and arguably it just led to the largest and craziest conspiracy theory in American history (the idea that Trump is a Russian spy).

by jamsch 7y ago

In other words, mental gymnastics to justify that your opponents are morally wrong and you're right, and because they're wrong, I have every right to stop them by any means necessary.

WAHa_06x36 7y ago

Same "mental gymnastics" that were used to go to war against nazis in WW2, yes. Was that wrong?

kaolti 7y ago
I rephrased this quite a few times, but I can't put this any other way: You are delusional.
- WAHa_06x36 7y ago
  Not even a little. If you actually have an argument, do make it.
  - kaolti 7y ago
    Fair enough. Do you not see the problem with a monopoly deciding what is and isn't okay to say? You're comparing people who comment on websites to nazis? Did you not get the memo about the media calling everyone they don't like a nazi - including Pewdiepie? Do you really think these companies have YOUR best interest at heart instead of just siding with the political views of their shareholders?
    - zimpenfish 7y ago
      > including Pewdiepie? I think one Nazi-related mistake might be forgiveable. When it keeps happening, well, you've got to start thinking the tar on the brush is from the same pot.
    - WAHa_06x36 7y ago
      I am calling nazis nazis. Gab has a very large population of actual nazis. It also is the home of people who go shoot up large crowds of people for having the wrong religion. I feel pretty confident in calling these people bad names.
      - DuskStar 7y ago
        I feel rather confident in saying that Gab does NOT have a very large population of actual nazis when using sane definitions for 'very large' and 'nazis'. Let's say... 10k and unironic 'Sieg Heil!'. Or, really, anywhere close to that. But if you use the media/leftist definition of 'nazi', which seems to be 'anyone to have ever made a politically incorrect joke or to have associated with the same', then OF COURSE you'll find a very large population of nazis. But you'll find that anywhere.
        belltaco 7y ago
        There are actually very few jokes on Voat or Gab. Also, neo-Nazis are different from actual Nazis.
    - untog 7y ago
      Firefox and Chrome can't both be a monopoly.
      - Ygg2 7y ago
        Chrome is a monopoly. Firefox is just a backbench player at this point.
        ShrinkingWild 7y ago
        What resources have chrome monopolised to prevent other browsers from being provided? If chrome is a monopoly, why can I just go download firefox or opera or internet explorer? Chrome isn't a monopoly, it's just the most popular/best on the market at the moment.
        Ygg2 7y ago
        Google used its influence via Web Search to expand into the field of Web Browsers. So Google used it's Web presence to recommend Chrome. Additionally, Google used it's Web Services (e.g. Google Mail, Google Docs, YouTube) to nudge users in the direction of Chrome. If YouTube works best with Chrome, people will flock to it. Finally, Chrome might be the popular choice, but the most popular choice can be quite heinous in other ways.
        ShrinkingWild 7y ago
        Yes, Google promoted themselves on their own services, what's the problem with that? The influence gained from their prowess in web search was legitimate, I don't see a problem with them leveraging that. If chrome was garbage it wouldn't have helped. And yes, Google's products and services work best inside Google's browser. There's no problem there either, they can stop you using them in other browsers completely if they like, it's their property to do with as they please. You're free not to use chrome or any of Google's services, there are other options, so Google is not a monopoly.
        7y ago
    - belltaco 7y ago
      >including Pewdiepie Didn't he pay third worlders money to hold up signs saying "death to all jews" ? Isn't that what the Nazis tried to do, somewhat successfully? The media is supposed to like him for things like that or what?
      - forgottenpass 7y ago
        >Isn't that what the Nazis tried to do, somewhat successfully? No. The Nazis did not post spicy jokes about genocide to the internet. They committed genocide. Slight difference.
        kaolti 7y ago
        How weird is it that this needs pointing out.
        belltaco 7y ago
        Calling for genocide is a spicy joke? How does calling for killing an entire group of people sound funny to you? Not to mention paying really poor people in the third world to hold up offensive things, I guess exploiting poor people also sounds funny to you.
Ygg2 7y ago
If you think the current crop of neo-nazis has the same clout and power as the WW2 ones, I have several bridges to sell you.
ShrinkingWild 7y ago
I think the main difference here is that the nazi's were actually doing bad things as well as saying bad things. In this case, bar the rare exception by individuals, these are people who are vocal that they think they're superior based on a superficial biological trait and nothing more.
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]
- dkns 7y ago
  Nazis started with just saying bad things as well.
  - ShrinkingWild 7y ago
    Nazis also drank water and some probably even had pets. A lot of things started because people have said bad things, a lot of things also haven't started even though some people said bad things. The problem is something has to start and in order for that to happen, action has to be taken. Taking action based on the fact that some bad people one time said the same things is a bad idea, you're initiating the actions and inevitably they'll respond with more than just the words they started with.
repolfx 7y ago
The USA didn't go to war against the Nazis until they had gone well beyond even the most terrible actions, let alone speech. Almost all of Europe had already been conquered, the last holdout in the UK was getting pounded daily and the US still didn't join until attacked directly. The core difference between then and now is that America of the mid 20th century didn't believe ideas were inherently dangerous - even the communist threat led to at worst the McCarthy hearings which are universally regarded now as a stain on America's history. What we see today is lots of Valley Ivy League graduate types who are convinced that reading a few tweets of the wrong kind wipes people's brains and literally turns them into the third Reich, in ways that nobody can stop or control. But there's no evidence for this viewpoint, and arguably it just led to the largest and craziest conspiracy theory in American history (the idea that Trump is a Russian spy).