10 ms·

What constitutes ‘extremism’? It’s a term so vague as to be practically meaninglessness.

by BonesJustice 7y ago

solotronics 7y ago
Extremism seemt to match up closely with an opinion that is opposite those in power.
- BonesJustice 7y ago
  And yet those in power are the ones who get to decide what the term means.
krapp 7y ago
> What constitutes ‘extremism’? It’s a term so vague as to be practically meaninglessness. No, it isn't. Inevitably someone like yourself will come into threads like these and attempt to start a slippery slope argument by trying to imply that the subject at hand is meaningless and, therefore, all attempts to address it are arbitrary. It really is strange how, for certain subjects, people just forget how English works. So let's begin with the word itself. "Extremism" is a noun. The root of the word is "extreme." A dictionary will define "extremism" as "the holding of extreme political or religious views; fanaticism." Synonyms:fanaticism, radicalism, zealotry, zeal, fundamentalism, dogmatism, bigotry, militancy, activism; Now, let us address the article to provide further context: Tech company and world leaders have signed an unprecedented Christchurch Call agreement to eliminate terrorist and violent extremist content online. Here we have a reference to Christchurch, a terrorist event. The common understanding of "extremism," as it relates to political speech, and specifically in relation to the events at Christchurch and the article posted, would understand the shooting of mosques by white supremacists to be an extremist act. So we can see that in the context of the article, and the call to action mentioned, "extremism" is not vague, nor meaningless, but specifically related to the dissemination of violent and terroristic material and propaganda, as was similarly done in the aforementioned terrorist incident. Although this is Hacker News, and I know it's futile here to suggest that standing in the way of bigots and extremists is anything but a slippery slope towards an Orwellian dystopian nightmare of fascism and thought-police and boots crushing our heads forever, there is nothing in this article, or the call to action it describes, which would suggest an intent to censor all arbitrary political speech, nor is the meaning of, "extremist" not well defined within.
- pathseeker 7y ago
  Extremist is not well-defined, despite how much you want it to be. People who thought women had the right to vote a hundred years ago were extremist.
- chrisco255 7y ago
  It is a slippery slope. For all intents and purposes we're accelerating down the slope. The Orwellian nightmare you talk about already exists in countries like China. The naive presumption that the West will always support free expression is baseless. It will not unless it's vigilantly defended by Westerners. And once given up, liberty is not easily regained (see Venezuela, Cuba, USSR, East Germany, etc). It's also worth noting that whoever holds power and is defending status quo (however benevolent or malevolent) determines what constitutes extremism.
  - krapp 7y ago
    All Western countries have governments and are states based on the rule of law, and all place some limits on speech and expression. Even the US doesn't allow certain forms of expression, such as libel, slander, falsehoods, terroristic threats, etc. The West has therefore never supported free expression, just as it has never supported free markets. We are already on, and have always been on, that slope. Yet not all Western countries are like China or North Korea, odd. It's almost as if that slope isn't as slippery as some would have us believe.
    - jakeogh 7y ago
      Ah, the "cant happen here" argument.
      - krapp 7y ago
        No, more the "isn't inevitable" argument implied by the slippery slope fallacy. But that may be too subtle a distinction for a thread like this.
sonnyblarney 7y ago
Well, broadcasting your massacre of 20 people online would be one kind of 'extremism'. So there's that. Surely it can get tricky (and it will) but we have to do something. This is not new, we always have. Every nation has some kind of hate law, applied one way or another.
anigbrowl 7y ago
Is it, though? https://www.amazon.com/Extremism-MIT-Press-Essential-Knowledge/dp/0262535874/ https://www.amazon.com/Extremism-MIT-Press-Essential-Knowled...
fzeroracer 7y ago
I'm going to take a swing at your argument from a different angle, so follow along for a second. How do you define an immigrant? The reason why I bring this up is because I've often seen people embracing laws or actions targeting immigrants, but isn't this in effect the same slippery slope as attempting to define extremism when we talk about free speech? Especially as immigration law is often expanded over time, encroaching on the rights of 'citizen' (a term which is also eroded over time) as we define a secondary class of people of which your typical rights do not apply to. If we want to play the definition game, the exact definition of the word 'immigrant' depends entirely on the ruling class, ergo makes laws affecting immigrants equally as likely to cause the slippery slope effect as laws that affect extremists.

What constitutes ‘extremism’? It’s a term so vague as to be practically meaninglessness.

solotronics 7y ago

Extremism seemt to match up closely with an opinion that is opposite those in power.

BonesJustice 7y ago
And yet those in power are the ones who get to decide what the term means.

krapp 7y ago

> What constitutes ‘extremism’? It’s a term so vague as to be practically meaninglessness. No, it isn't. Inevitably someone like yourself will come into threads like these and attempt to start a slippery slope argument by trying to imply that the subject at hand is meaningless and, therefore, all attempts to address it are arbitrary. It really is strange how, for certain subjects, people just forget how English works. So let's begin with the word itself. "Extremism" is a noun. The root of the word is "extreme." A dictionary will define "extremism" as "the holding of extreme political or religious views; fanaticism." Synonyms:fanaticism, radicalism, zealotry, zeal, fundamentalism, dogmatism, bigotry, militancy, activism; Now, let us address the article to provide further context: Tech company and world leaders have signed an unprecedented Christchurch Call agreement to eliminate terrorist and violent extremist content online. Here we have a reference to Christchurch, a terrorist event. The common understanding of "extremism," as it relates to political speech, and specifically in relation to the events at Christchurch and the article posted, would understand the shooting of mosques by white supremacists to be an extremist act. So we can see that in the context of the article, and the call to action mentioned, "extremism" is not vague, nor meaningless, but specifically related to the dissemination of violent and terroristic material and propaganda, as was similarly done in the aforementioned terrorist incident. Although this is Hacker News, and I know it's futile here to suggest that standing in the way of bigots and extremists is anything but a slippery slope towards an Orwellian dystopian nightmare of fascism and thought-police and boots crushing our heads forever, there is nothing in this article, or the call to action it describes, which would suggest an intent to censor all arbitrary political speech, nor is the meaning of, "extremist" not well defined within.

pathseeker 7y ago
Extremist is not well-defined, despite how much you want it to be. People who thought women had the right to vote a hundred years ago were extremist.
chrisco255 7y ago
It is a slippery slope. For all intents and purposes we're accelerating down the slope. The Orwellian nightmare you talk about already exists in countries like China. The naive presumption that the West will always support free expression is baseless. It will not unless it's vigilantly defended by Westerners. And once given up, liberty is not easily regained (see Venezuela, Cuba, USSR, East Germany, etc). It's also worth noting that whoever holds power and is defending status quo (however benevolent or malevolent) determines what constitutes extremism.
- krapp 7y ago
  All Western countries have governments and are states based on the rule of law, and all place some limits on speech and expression. Even the US doesn't allow certain forms of expression, such as libel, slander, falsehoods, terroristic threats, etc. The West has therefore never supported free expression, just as it has never supported free markets. We are already on, and have always been on, that slope. Yet not all Western countries are like China or North Korea, odd. It's almost as if that slope isn't as slippery as some would have us believe.
  - jakeogh 7y ago
    Ah, the "cant happen here" argument.
    - krapp 7y ago
      No, more the "isn't inevitable" argument implied by the slippery slope fallacy. But that may be too subtle a distinction for a thread like this.

sonnyblarney 7y ago

Well, broadcasting your massacre of 20 people online would be one kind of 'extremism'. So there's that. Surely it can get tricky (and it will) but we have to do something. This is not new, we always have. Every nation has some kind of hate law, applied one way or another.

anigbrowl 7y ago

Is it, though? https://www.amazon.com/Extremism-MIT-Press-Essential-Knowledge/dp/0262535874/ https://www.amazon.com/Extremism-MIT-Press-Essential-Knowled...

fzeroracer 7y ago

I'm going to take a swing at your argument from a different angle, so follow along for a second. How do you define an immigrant? The reason why I bring this up is because I've often seen people embracing laws or actions targeting immigrants, but isn't this in effect the same slippery slope as attempting to define extremism when we talk about free speech? Especially as immigration law is often expanded over time, encroaching on the rights of 'citizen' (a term which is also eroded over time) as we define a secondary class of people of which your typical rights do not apply to. If we want to play the definition game, the exact definition of the word 'immigrant' depends entirely on the ruling class, ergo makes laws affecting immigrants equally as likely to cause the slippery slope effect as laws that affect extremists.