4 ms·

Bless your heart. It was actually a trick question: you cannot tell me what “violent extremism” means in this context, because you don’t know. You don’t know

Bless your heart. It was actually a trick question: you cannot tell me what “violent extremism” means in this context, because you don’t know. You don’t know because you’re not the one who gets to decide. The only definition that matters is the one held by whoever will be deciding what gets censored and what doesn’t. How might your political adversaries choose to apply a filter on “violent extremism”? I could easily see claims arising that abortions are both violent and extreme, and that pro-choice material is therefore “violent extremist” content. That’s probably not what the people behind this agreement had in mind, but at the end of the day, that doesn’t make much difference.

krapp 7y ago
>It was actually a trick question: you cannot tell me what “violent extremism” means in this context, because you don’t know. You don’t know because you’re not the one who gets to decide. Oh, ok. The powers that be. The shadowy cabal. The unseen hand which controls all aspects of society with absolute and arbitrary power. I thought I was going to be able to have a rational, intellectually satisfying discussion but once again no one is capable of defending free speech without resorting to slippery slopes and absolutism. Ah well. Here's another valueless thread I can ignore.
- pathseeker 7y ago
  >I thought I was going to be able to have a rational, intellectually satisfying discussion but But instead you lashed out irrationally, posted a definition that went against your point, and then dismissed the entire thread because you realized you weren't supporting your argument.
- stcredzero 7y ago
  The powers that be. The shadowy cabal. The unseen hand which controls all aspects of society with absolute and arbitrary power. Actually, this does seem to be the case with a somewhat reduced context of just media/social-media/tech in 2019. Journalist collusion is well documented. Big company manipulation of local journalists is documented. We have seen indications of CEOs of different companies cooperating to suppress politics unacceptable to them, even to the point of implementing censorship and demonetization within their platforms, and outside their own companies and spanning multiple platforms. no one is capable of defending free speech without resorting to slippery slopes and absolutism That's begging the question. Free Speech is inherently an (almost) absolutist position. There are other rights which take precedence, but to be valid, no one can be the arbiter of the philosophical or political positions taken -- only of incitement to specific illegal actions. Otherwise the arbiters on speech exist, and there is no Free Speech. In reality there is no need to defend Free Speech. Society isn't on the verge of collapse here. Maintaining Free Speech won't lead to an escalation of extremism. Only increased suppression will do that. What's really happening, is that big companies and governments are engaging in a power grab which weakens Free Speech.
  - fzeroracer 7y ago
    Free speech is not an absolutist position and it does not exist. There is no single country on this earth, past or present, which has held an absolutist free speech position. Yes, that includes America. It may be enshrined in our constitution, but that has never stopped us from selectively applying constitutional rights to different classes of citizens or people we consider to be non-people. The real problem is pretending that an absolutist position exists and acting like we're becoming more free when the reality is that violent bigotry is rising while we complain about the imaginary slippery slope into fascism whenever someone decides to take action against them.
    - lliamander 7y ago
      > It may be enshrined in our constitution, but that has never stopped us from selectively applying constitutional rights to different classes of citizens or people we consider to be non-people. So, because some people were denied their rights in the past, it proves that right doesn't exist and shouldn't be protected?
      - stcredzero 7y ago
        So, because some people were denied their rights in the past, it proves that right doesn't exist and shouldn't be protected? "The arc of the moral universe is long, but it bends toward justice." --MLK I would agree we don't do this: "Selectively applying constitutional rights to different classes of citizens or people we consider to be non-people." Instead of forcing a power differential on people we don't like by limiting their access to things on the Internet, we need to convince them. It may take time. But that is the way of just, enlightened people. Using coercion against people by taking away viral-dissemination and discovery from them isn't any different than taking away books, taking away printing presses, or not allowing them into good schools.
- 50656E6973 7y ago
  Claiming to want to have a debate about free speech only to default to strawman arguments, baseless dismissals, and arrogant ignorance; your ironic and authoritarian behavior exhibits their point: the meaning of speech is subjectively defined by the individual
- acct1771 7y ago
  Nothing personal, but that's because we're old enough to have seen everyone slipping down the slope.

krapp 7y ago

>It was actually a trick question: you cannot tell me what “violent extremism” means in this context, because you don’t know. You don’t know because you’re not the one who gets to decide. Oh, ok. The powers that be. The shadowy cabal. The unseen hand which controls all aspects of society with absolute and arbitrary power. I thought I was going to be able to have a rational, intellectually satisfying discussion but once again no one is capable of defending free speech without resorting to slippery slopes and absolutism. Ah well. Here's another valueless thread I can ignore.

pathseeker 7y ago
>I thought I was going to be able to have a rational, intellectually satisfying discussion but But instead you lashed out irrationally, posted a definition that went against your point, and then dismissed the entire thread because you realized you weren't supporting your argument.
stcredzero 7y ago
The powers that be. The shadowy cabal. The unseen hand which controls all aspects of society with absolute and arbitrary power. Actually, this does seem to be the case with a somewhat reduced context of just media/social-media/tech in 2019. Journalist collusion is well documented. Big company manipulation of local journalists is documented. We have seen indications of CEOs of different companies cooperating to suppress politics unacceptable to them, even to the point of implementing censorship and demonetization within their platforms, and outside their own companies and spanning multiple platforms. no one is capable of defending free speech without resorting to slippery slopes and absolutism That's begging the question. Free Speech is inherently an (almost) absolutist position. There are other rights which take precedence, but to be valid, no one can be the arbiter of the philosophical or political positions taken -- only of incitement to specific illegal actions. Otherwise the arbiters on speech exist, and there is no Free Speech. In reality there is no need to defend Free Speech. Society isn't on the verge of collapse here. Maintaining Free Speech won't lead to an escalation of extremism. Only increased suppression will do that. What's really happening, is that big companies and governments are engaging in a power grab which weakens Free Speech.
- fzeroracer 7y ago
  Free speech is not an absolutist position and it does not exist. There is no single country on this earth, past or present, which has held an absolutist free speech position. Yes, that includes America. It may be enshrined in our constitution, but that has never stopped us from selectively applying constitutional rights to different classes of citizens or people we consider to be non-people. The real problem is pretending that an absolutist position exists and acting like we're becoming more free when the reality is that violent bigotry is rising while we complain about the imaginary slippery slope into fascism whenever someone decides to take action against them.
  - lliamander 7y ago
    > It may be enshrined in our constitution, but that has never stopped us from selectively applying constitutional rights to different classes of citizens or people we consider to be non-people. So, because some people were denied their rights in the past, it proves that right doesn't exist and shouldn't be protected?
    - stcredzero 7y ago
      So, because some people were denied their rights in the past, it proves that right doesn't exist and shouldn't be protected? "The arc of the moral universe is long, but it bends toward justice." --MLK I would agree we don't do this: "Selectively applying constitutional rights to different classes of citizens or people we consider to be non-people." Instead of forcing a power differential on people we don't like by limiting their access to things on the Internet, we need to convince them. It may take time. But that is the way of just, enlightened people. Using coercion against people by taking away viral-dissemination and discovery from them isn't any different than taking away books, taking away printing presses, or not allowing them into good schools.
50656E6973 7y ago
Claiming to want to have a debate about free speech only to default to strawman arguments, baseless dismissals, and arrogant ignorance; your ironic and authoritarian behavior exhibits their point: the meaning of speech is subjectively defined by the individual
acct1771 7y ago
Nothing personal, but that's because we're old enough to have seen everyone slipping down the slope.