4 ms·

Why is this suddenly a discussion about extremism? Not everyone who is bigoted is an extremist, but maybe it's easier for you to argue as though this is the cas

Why is this suddenly a discussion about extremism? Not everyone who is bigoted is an extremist, but maybe it's easier for you to argue as though this is the case. > Extremist bigots take it as read that people of the wrong [...] group are either not people or at best inferior people, and direct their efforts to promoting those views, planning how to eliminate those they dislike, and normalizing that behavior. Funny, this is a pretty good description of cancel culture. "Warning" and "complaining" is one thing, but advocating for the complete social and professional ostracization of people for increasingly arbitrary reasons is happening, and has been happening. _That_ sounds like extremism to me. Assuming constant bad faith on the part of people, _most_ of whom don't have any control over the views they hold, is not how this problem gets solved.

krainboltgreene 7y ago
> Not everyone who is bigoted is an extremist, but maybe it's easier for you to argue as though this is the case. How is "I don't consider you human" not an extreme position?
- kerkeslager 7y ago
  Not all bigotry is "I don't consider you human".
  - breuleux 7y ago
    While that's true, I think it's worth pointing out that it is a mirror of your own statement that "the average left-leaning person today doesn't see bigots even as people any more." Neither statement is true. They are the same kind of hyperbolic/uncharitable extrapolation of a group's inner thoughts.
    - kerkeslager 7y ago
      That's true, it is a mirror, which should be disturbing to anyone on the left who doesn't want the left to be a mirror of the right. > They are the same kind of hyperbolic/uncharitable extrapolation of a group's inner thoughts. Is it, though? What does saying, "I don't think you deserve to be heard" say about the person saying it?
      - breuleux 7y ago
        > That's true, it is a mirror, which should be disturbing to anyone on the left who doesn't want the left to be a mirror of the right. I mean, sure, but I was meaning to make you think about your own tendency to fall into the same trap. Also, the left can scarcely avoid being a mirror of the right in many ways, given that both groups are made out of humans. The influence of ideology on social dynamics is overstated. > What does saying, "I don't think you deserve to be heard" say about the person saying it? But see, you're putting words in people's mouths here. This saying is far from the average left-leaning position. Even if we were to look at the subsection of the left that wishes to de-platform certain individuals, they generally wouldn't say something as crude and caricatural as "I don't think you deserve to be heard." This is, perhaps, what you think that they think, but this is uncharitable and dismissive.
        kerkeslager 7y ago
        Maybe not in those words, but would you agree that that is what you're saying when you demand someone be deplatformed?
        breuleux 7y ago
        Generally, I wouldn't. People may want to deplatform other individuals for a variety of reasons. A common one is to impede the spread of ideas that they consider dangerous, because they believe that these ideas will cause human suffering down the line. Whether these ideas truly are dangerous, whether their obstruction is effective, or whether it may backfire, that's another debate. The point is that they genuinely believe these ideas to be mind-viruses of sorts, and they genuinely believe that deplatforming is an effective way to impede them. If they are correct on these counts, then their actions are justified. There are other possible rationales. One would be concern about bandwidth: platforms have limited bandwidth and can only spread a limited number of ideas, and people also have limited bandwidth and can only be aware of a limited number of ideas. The spread of bad ideas may therefore harm us by "clogging" the system (the resurgence of flat Earthism may be the most egregious example of wasted bandwidth). I don't mean to debate the merits of these reasons. I just mean to point out that the "deplatformers" do have well thought out rationales. And if they are wrong, which is certainly possible, they are not obviously wrong.
- vonmoltke 7y ago
  > How is "I don't consider you human" not an extreme position? Most bigots do not believe that.
  - irascible 7y ago
    Oh pray tell us what exactly bigots believe? Can't believe I'm seeing this on HN.
- djsumdog 7y ago
  The trouble is, not everyone is saying that. A few people here and there are, but what about some mode nuance things? For example, what if someone says they're fine with trans-people and think everyone should live their lives whoever they want, but trans M2F shouldn't participate in professional sports because it's not fair. That's an incredibly polarizing statement, and one who makes it is immediately labeled as a bigot. Some go as far as to say such an individual is "denying trans people exist." There is a lot to unpack there, and people can have reasonable debates about both sides of that statement. Adam Conover and Joe Rogan have had such a conversation (it's a really good episode of the Rogan podcast), but many people refuse to even listen to it because they consider Rogan a bigot/alt-right-adjacent/etc. You have to be careful because there is so much room in the details and someone not accepting 100% of x world view doesn't immediately make them a terrible human being. In the past, controversial views converge over time. Heidegger talked about extreme ideas as a thesis, those trying to keep things as they are as antithesis, and eventually society moves together with some kind of synthesis. All that feels like it's been thrown out the window for extreme left or extreme right ideology.
  - mpalmer 7y ago
    > That's an incredibly polarizing statement, and one who makes it is immediately labeled as a bigot. Some go as far as to say such an individual is "denying trans people exist." Great point. A huge part of the problem is language. Subtlety and nuance gets stripped away (especially online), so that everything you disagree with is an unconscionable violation. It's the language of clickbait. I'm sure the idea is to break through the noise and mobilize people against perceived injustice, but all it does is make the noise that much louder.
  - x86_64Ubuntu 7y ago
    "You have to be careful because there is so much room in the details and someone not accepting 100% of x world view doesn't immediately make them a terrible human being." Like what? What could be the "not a terrible human being" part be about someone who wants the state to disacknowledge someone's humanity?
- HeroOfAges 7y ago
  Who do we trust to be the arbiters of extreme positions? I would consider the dismissal of using biological science to define male and female as an extreme position, and yet I could be banned from Twitter by saying as much.
anigbrowl 7y ago
Why is this suddenly a discussion about extremism? Because that is my area of expertise and I wish to contribute to the discussion. While not all bigots are extremists, all extremists are bigots. "Warning" and "complaining" is one thing, but advocating for the complete social and professional ostracization of people for increasingly arbitrary reasons I'm not making an argument for cancel culture, which has flaws of its own. When I talk about extremists I have narrow and specific criteria for inclusion in that category, most importantly the advocacy of genocide. Assuming constant bad faith on the part of people, _most_ of whom don't have any control over the views they hold You seem to be assuming that most people are mindless, and further that I'm talking about the broad mass of people.
- mpalmer 7y ago
  > I'm not making an argument for cancel culture, which has flaws of its own. When I talk about extremists I have narrow and specific criteria for inclusion in that category, most importantly the advocacy of genocide. No one would disagree with that definition. Your comment's parent made the point that exclusionary language is used in many in-groups, not just bigoted ones. Your contribution was to say that the parent is talking about left-leaning people like they are - in your words - genocide advocates. I don't know that this is a quality contribution. > You seem to be assuming that most people are mindless, and further that I'm talking about the broad mass of people. Are you saying that people generally have control over their opinions and predispositions? I know I can't change my views at will, Lord knows if I could I'd become a bit more woke to fit in better.
  - anigbrowl 7y ago
    The parent to me comment was complaining about the attitude of left-wing people towards bigots. I'm leveraging my knowledge of extremism to explain why left wingers feel such antipathy towards bigotry: because of the genocidal outcomes which are associated with it and nowadays actively promoted by some folk. Of course, extremism is by no means limited to one particular ideology. I'm not a fan of Maoists, for example. I believe one can certainly change their views, although it's hard work.
deleted 7y ago
[deleted]

krainboltgreene 7y ago

> Not everyone who is bigoted is an extremist, but maybe it's easier for you to argue as though this is the case. How is "I don't consider you human" not an extreme position?

kerkeslager 7y ago
Not all bigotry is "I don't consider you human".
- breuleux 7y ago
  While that's true, I think it's worth pointing out that it is a mirror of your own statement that "the average left-leaning person today doesn't see bigots even as people any more." Neither statement is true. They are the same kind of hyperbolic/uncharitable extrapolation of a group's inner thoughts.
  - kerkeslager 7y ago
    That's true, it is a mirror, which should be disturbing to anyone on the left who doesn't want the left to be a mirror of the right. > They are the same kind of hyperbolic/uncharitable extrapolation of a group's inner thoughts. Is it, though? What does saying, "I don't think you deserve to be heard" say about the person saying it?
    - breuleux 7y ago
      > That's true, it is a mirror, which should be disturbing to anyone on the left who doesn't want the left to be a mirror of the right. I mean, sure, but I was meaning to make you think about your own tendency to fall into the same trap. Also, the left can scarcely avoid being a mirror of the right in many ways, given that both groups are made out of humans. The influence of ideology on social dynamics is overstated. > What does saying, "I don't think you deserve to be heard" say about the person saying it? But see, you're putting words in people's mouths here. This saying is far from the average left-leaning position. Even if we were to look at the subsection of the left that wishes to de-platform certain individuals, they generally wouldn't say something as crude and caricatural as "I don't think you deserve to be heard." This is, perhaps, what you think that they think, but this is uncharitable and dismissive.
      - kerkeslager 7y ago
        Maybe not in those words, but would you agree that that is what you're saying when you demand someone be deplatformed?
        breuleux 7y ago
        Generally, I wouldn't. People may want to deplatform other individuals for a variety of reasons. A common one is to impede the spread of ideas that they consider dangerous, because they believe that these ideas will cause human suffering down the line. Whether these ideas truly are dangerous, whether their obstruction is effective, or whether it may backfire, that's another debate. The point is that they genuinely believe these ideas to be mind-viruses of sorts, and they genuinely believe that deplatforming is an effective way to impede them. If they are correct on these counts, then their actions are justified. There are other possible rationales. One would be concern about bandwidth: platforms have limited bandwidth and can only spread a limited number of ideas, and people also have limited bandwidth and can only be aware of a limited number of ideas. The spread of bad ideas may therefore harm us by "clogging" the system (the resurgence of flat Earthism may be the most egregious example of wasted bandwidth). I don't mean to debate the merits of these reasons. I just mean to point out that the "deplatformers" do have well thought out rationales. And if they are wrong, which is certainly possible, they are not obviously wrong.
vonmoltke 7y ago
> How is "I don't consider you human" not an extreme position? Most bigots do not believe that.
- irascible 7y ago
  Oh pray tell us what exactly bigots believe? Can't believe I'm seeing this on HN.
djsumdog 7y ago
The trouble is, not everyone is saying that. A few people here and there are, but what about some mode nuance things? For example, what if someone says they're fine with trans-people and think everyone should live their lives whoever they want, but trans M2F shouldn't participate in professional sports because it's not fair. That's an incredibly polarizing statement, and one who makes it is immediately labeled as a bigot. Some go as far as to say such an individual is "denying trans people exist." There is a lot to unpack there, and people can have reasonable debates about both sides of that statement. Adam Conover and Joe Rogan have had such a conversation (it's a really good episode of the Rogan podcast), but many people refuse to even listen to it because they consider Rogan a bigot/alt-right-adjacent/etc. You have to be careful because there is so much room in the details and someone not accepting 100% of x world view doesn't immediately make them a terrible human being. In the past, controversial views converge over time. Heidegger talked about extreme ideas as a thesis, those trying to keep things as they are as antithesis, and eventually society moves together with some kind of synthesis. All that feels like it's been thrown out the window for extreme left or extreme right ideology.
- mpalmer 7y ago
  > That's an incredibly polarizing statement, and one who makes it is immediately labeled as a bigot. Some go as far as to say such an individual is "denying trans people exist." Great point. A huge part of the problem is language. Subtlety and nuance gets stripped away (especially online), so that everything you disagree with is an unconscionable violation. It's the language of clickbait. I'm sure the idea is to break through the noise and mobilize people against perceived injustice, but all it does is make the noise that much louder.
- x86_64Ubuntu 7y ago
  "You have to be careful because there is so much room in the details and someone not accepting 100% of x world view doesn't immediately make them a terrible human being." Like what? What could be the "not a terrible human being" part be about someone who wants the state to disacknowledge someone's humanity?
HeroOfAges 7y ago
Who do we trust to be the arbiters of extreme positions? I would consider the dismissal of using biological science to define male and female as an extreme position, and yet I could be banned from Twitter by saying as much.

anigbrowl 7y ago

Why is this suddenly a discussion about extremism? Because that is my area of expertise and I wish to contribute to the discussion. While not all bigots are extremists, all extremists are bigots. "Warning" and "complaining" is one thing, but advocating for the complete social and professional ostracization of people for increasingly arbitrary reasons I'm not making an argument for cancel culture, which has flaws of its own. When I talk about extremists I have narrow and specific criteria for inclusion in that category, most importantly the advocacy of genocide. Assuming constant bad faith on the part of people, _most_ of whom don't have any control over the views they hold You seem to be assuming that most people are mindless, and further that I'm talking about the broad mass of people.

mpalmer 7y ago
> I'm not making an argument for cancel culture, which has flaws of its own. When I talk about extremists I have narrow and specific criteria for inclusion in that category, most importantly the advocacy of genocide. No one would disagree with that definition. Your comment's parent made the point that exclusionary language is used in many in-groups, not just bigoted ones. Your contribution was to say that the parent is talking about left-leaning people like they are - in your words - genocide advocates. I don't know that this is a quality contribution. > You seem to be assuming that most people are mindless, and further that I'm talking about the broad mass of people. Are you saying that people generally have control over their opinions and predispositions? I know I can't change my views at will, Lord knows if I could I'd become a bit more woke to fit in better.
- anigbrowl 7y ago
  The parent to me comment was complaining about the attitude of left-wing people towards bigots. I'm leveraging my knowledge of extremism to explain why left wingers feel such antipathy towards bigotry: because of the genocidal outcomes which are associated with it and nowadays actively promoted by some folk. Of course, extremism is by no means limited to one particular ideology. I'm not a fan of Maoists, for example. I believe one can certainly change their views, although it's hard work.

deleted 7y ago

[deleted]