3 ms·

> If people are easily convinced to hate other people, the problem is not dangerous speech or ideas. The problem is a breakdown in fundamental education, i.e.,

> If people are easily convinced to hate other people, the problem is not dangerous speech or ideas. The problem is a breakdown in fundamental education, i.e., those people are dangerously ignorant. With reeducation camps reappearing in parts of the world and sensitivity, bias and other types of training in other parts ... that makes me somewhat uncomfortable as idea. The ones in power always want to educate the wrongthinkers. And judging how easily Democrats learned to hate everything Trump related and before them Republicans - everything Obama, and hating each other - I would say that it is not a problem with education. People hate because it is fun and pleasurable.

pengstrom 7y ago
I think a direct comparison between Obama and Trump is a bit dishonest. Obama did some bad things, sure, but Trump's behaviour is unprecedented.
- ReptileMan 7y ago
  I am not comparing Trump to Obama, I am comparing the Dem/Rep reaction. There were two minutes of hate before the inauguration.
  - mcphage 7y ago
    > the wise man bowed his head solemnly and spoke: "theres actually zero difference between good & bad things. you imbecile. you fucking moron" - dril (https://twitter.com/dril/status/473265809079693312 https://twitter.com/dril/status/473265809079693312)
laumars 7y ago
That's why Cohen's speech is all the more important. To be clear, I don't agree with everything he said but he is absolutely right that there are some facts that are objectively true. Filtering out misinformation from fact and opinion means those political parties can still have their debates where they slam their opponents but they cannot make lies nor baseless allegations. The problem we have these days is it's become impossible for the casual observer to separate fact from fiction. Which then just encourages people to take information spread within their own echo chamber at face value (since, rightly or wrongly, that's the network they trust). If we can at least remove the falsehoods from the conversation that is a step forward in having open debates. Someone will no doubt point out that there's a fuzzy line between a lie and something that is true but intentionally misleading, so where do you draw the line. Unfortunately there's no easy answer to that. However I personally believe things have gotten bad enough where it's now worth the trying.
- ReptileMan 7y ago
  >To be clear, I don't agree with everything he said but he is absolutely right that there are some facts that are objectively true Like the fact that "Oceania was at war with Eastasia. Oceania had always been at war with Eastasia" ? Who decides what is fact and what misinformation. Caitlyn Jenner is a woman - this is objectively true for half the society, bullshit for the other half. Who decides?
  - jbarberu 7y ago
    Caitlyn Jenner?
  - laumars 7y ago
    "Objectively true" doesn't mean "people believe it to be true" (that's "subjective" not "objective"). "Objectively true" means there's a body of evidence that supports it being true. So the question shouldn't be "who decides what's true?" but rather "what evidence is there to support a claim?" I've got no issue with subjective content so long as it isn't intentionally harmful but when content is objectively false (the example Cohen used was Holocaust deniers -- there's a body of evidence which proves the Holocaust did happen) it's probably better it was removed. Newspapers, for example, are often forced to write retractions when courts find them to be dishonest. Where the blurred line lies isn't the "who" behind the moderation but the "where". Where do you draw a line between content that is untrue and content that is technically true but written in an extremely dishonest way? Do we define things as a strictly boolean state (ie only objectively false content gets removed) or is there a state in the middle where content that is not objectively false but still hugely dishonest can also be removed. For example the UK Brexit slogan "We send £350 million to the NHS, lets fund the NHS instead" was not objectively false (well, the figure they published was untrue but lets ignore that for the purpose of this example) but it was also dishonest because it suggest the EU membership fee would fund the NHS if we left the EU and the actual truth is that almost certainly wouldn't happen. So should dishonest content be removed also when it is as damaging as something objectively false? That's such a dangerous precedence to take however I'm also not convinced the status quo is working either because people currently game the system and it does have massive repercussions.

pengstrom 7y ago

I think a direct comparison between Obama and Trump is a bit dishonest. Obama did some bad things, sure, but Trump's behaviour is unprecedented.

ReptileMan 7y ago
I am not comparing Trump to Obama, I am comparing the Dem/Rep reaction. There were two minutes of hate before the inauguration.
- mcphage 7y ago
  > the wise man bowed his head solemnly and spoke: "theres actually zero difference between good & bad things. you imbecile. you fucking moron" - dril (https://twitter.com/dril/status/473265809079693312 https://twitter.com/dril/status/473265809079693312)

laumars 7y ago

That's why Cohen's speech is all the more important. To be clear, I don't agree with everything he said but he is absolutely right that there are some facts that are objectively true. Filtering out misinformation from fact and opinion means those political parties can still have their debates where they slam their opponents but they cannot make lies nor baseless allegations. The problem we have these days is it's become impossible for the casual observer to separate fact from fiction. Which then just encourages people to take information spread within their own echo chamber at face value (since, rightly or wrongly, that's the network they trust). If we can at least remove the falsehoods from the conversation that is a step forward in having open debates. Someone will no doubt point out that there's a fuzzy line between a lie and something that is true but intentionally misleading, so where do you draw the line. Unfortunately there's no easy answer to that. However I personally believe things have gotten bad enough where it's now worth the trying.

ReptileMan 7y ago
>To be clear, I don't agree with everything he said but he is absolutely right that there are some facts that are objectively true Like the fact that "Oceania was at war with Eastasia. Oceania had always been at war with Eastasia" ? Who decides what is fact and what misinformation. Caitlyn Jenner is a woman - this is objectively true for half the society, bullshit for the other half. Who decides?
- jbarberu 7y ago
  Caitlyn Jenner?
- laumars 7y ago
  "Objectively true" doesn't mean "people believe it to be true" (that's "subjective" not "objective"). "Objectively true" means there's a body of evidence that supports it being true. So the question shouldn't be "who decides what's true?" but rather "what evidence is there to support a claim?" I've got no issue with subjective content so long as it isn't intentionally harmful but when content is objectively false (the example Cohen used was Holocaust deniers -- there's a body of evidence which proves the Holocaust did happen) it's probably better it was removed. Newspapers, for example, are often forced to write retractions when courts find them to be dishonest. Where the blurred line lies isn't the "who" behind the moderation but the "where". Where do you draw a line between content that is untrue and content that is technically true but written in an extremely dishonest way? Do we define things as a strictly boolean state (ie only objectively false content gets removed) or is there a state in the middle where content that is not objectively false but still hugely dishonest can also be removed. For example the UK Brexit slogan "We send £350 million to the NHS, lets fund the NHS instead" was not objectively false (well, the figure they published was untrue but lets ignore that for the purpose of this example) but it was also dishonest because it suggest the EU membership fee would fund the NHS if we left the EU and the actual truth is that almost certainly wouldn't happen. So should dishonest content be removed also when it is as damaging as something objectively false? That's such a dangerous precedence to take however I'm also not convinced the status quo is working either because people currently game the system and it does have massive repercussions.