3 ms·

There is a worse side effect that comes from conservatives feeling that they have been silenced, as people feel like they have less and less say in a political

by hpoe 6y ago

There is a worse side effect that comes from conservatives feeling that they have been silenced, as people feel like they have less and less say in a political process they are more and more likely to start employing means outside of it. The real risk here is that if more and more outlets for conservative voices are silenced, whether for good cause or not, this will reinforce the narrative that many of them have that they are the defenders of the truth and right and there is a vast conspiracy operating to seize their guns, deprive them of their rights, and whatever else they can imagine. As that happens there becomes more and more moral justification and greater and greater need there is seen to employ violence in end of their goals. Ultimately the more and more "dangerous" opinions and people who share those opinions are silenced the more and more dangerous they become in reality. EDIT: The nature of this comment is intended to be observational not advocational.

luckydata 6y ago
you're saying it like it's not already happening, and it's completely divorce from any actual reality or perception. When they say "I'm being silenced" they are simply pushing buttons they know work with more reasonable people, they are just using the "system" to their advantage. Conservatives in the USA are not a good faith actor and should never be taken at face value.
- hpoe 6y ago
  The problem with your response if you've fundementally divided the world into the fearless, social justice serving left and the corrupt, evil, fascist, right. It can be assumed that the far right is not going to change their mind at any point; however the majority of the world isn't far right or far left. Many people are moderates that could go one way or the other. By designating everyone who doesn't agree with you as "the right" that can't every act in good faith and is irredeemable you galvanize the more moderates. This incident won't have a substantive impact on the far right, but it may cause a change in opinion in more moderate voices. Essentially be advocating this black and white extremism you hurt your cause and play into the very narrative that those on the other side are saying.
  - luckydata 6y ago
    I'm sorry reality has taken such a fascist bent but it's not my fault, it's just something we have to contend with now. But your both-side-ism is morally reprehensible in the context of what's happening right now.
    - Avicebron 6y ago
      What exactly is happening and how can you really say that the reality is now fascist? It sounds like you've already made the both-side-ism implicitly yourself.
      - luckydata 6y ago
        lol, you're clearly a concern troll. https://www.cnn.com/2020/05/29/us/minneapolis-cnn-crew-arrested/index.html https://www.cnn.com/2020/05/29/us/minneapolis-cnn-crew-arres... not fascist enough for you? For me that's plenty.
        dang 6y ago
        Would you please stop breaking the HN guidelines with ideological flamewar and personal attacks? It's not what this site is for, you do it all the time, and we've warned you several times over several years. In fact I'm surprised we haven't banned you yet, and if you keep this up we will. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
- koheripbal 6y ago
  > Conservatives in the USA are not a good faith actor None of them? They are ALL acting bad faith? Is that a good faith argument?
- NateEag 6y ago
  I'm a United States citizen. I'm not a pure conservative, but I expect I hold several views you'd find repugnant and label as "conservative". For instance, I am strongly pro-life. Another one: I believe deeply in the existence of God (and other supernatural beings). I am, therefore, a bad-faith actor, if I'm following right?
  - luckydata 6y ago
    no, you're not following, but I suspect you're doing it on purpose and that was my point. edit: let me add a proof point from something that matters to you. https://www.usatoday.com/story/entertainment/tv/2020/05/21/aka-jane-roe-fx-norma-mccorvey-paid-speak-against-abortion/5236476002/ https://www.usatoday.com/story/entertainment/tv/2020/05/21/a... Conservatives in this country believe in "small government", "individual freedoms" and "separation between church and state" until a large slice of their electorate turns out to be religious fundamentalists, then they start mandating transvaginal ultrasounds in order to get an abortion etc... Does that sound like intellectual honesty or good faith?
    - NateEag 6y ago
      My question was, in fact, in good faith. I wanted to know if you would apply your generalization to me, as the way it read it seemed to me like it would. Apparently it doesn't, so I guess I didn't get what you meant. I tried to go back and reread it, but it's flagged now and I don't see a way to. I think your example is actually closer to intellectual honesty than you think it is. "Small government" is not "no government". To a pro-life conservative, abortion is murder. I've yet to meet a conservative who doesn't think the government should be involved in preventing murder. Requiring you look at the victim before killing them is a pretty pathetic protection against murder, but it's probably better than nothing. I'd guess from your framing that you support abortion rights. If so, I can certainly see why this would look like intellectual dishonesty to you, but as I argued above, I think that's due to not understanding the people you're talking about well enough, at least in this case.
QuercusMax 6y ago
Alternatively - if those pushing the far-right violent rhetoric don't have as much of an audience, their support may fade because they don't have a platform. Deplatforming works.
- hpoe 6y ago
  It is an interesting question. Although de-platforming reduces the reach of a group does it increase the overall vitrol of the group, or the level of extremism? Although it may mean fewer people become part of the community it would also mean that those that remain with it are now more isolated from the outside world and increase the precieved level of persecution? Would this then correlate with an increase in action? I don't know the answer to this, it seems logical to me that each of these answers would be yes, but I definitely think it is a topic worth investigating and discussing.
- Avicebron 6y ago
  Do you consider the tweet far-right violent rhetoric?
  - gknoy 6y ago
    When the president says "we will take over", and that "the shooting will start", that seems (to me) to be fairly authoritarian (right-leaning) rhetoric. Our laws explicitly forbid the national military "taking over" in such situations -- the national guard (state military) is who is supposed to be deployed.
    - woobar 6y ago
      Wikipedia says: "In 2006, Congress passed the 2007 National Defense Authorization Act, which gave the president the authority to mobilize National Guard units within the U.S. without the consent of state governors."
- koheripbal 6y ago
  > Deplatforming works. Any evidence for that assertion?
gbanfalvi 6y ago
Do you believe it’s more dangerous to: A: Remove a post encouraging violence with the risk it’ll anger a group of people? Or... B: Keep it and let it reach 80 million followers? There’s plenty of evidence that many sites (twitter included) allow violent speech from specific groups because they’re worried of the political backlash. These groups still complain about being silenced just the same, despite blatantly violating the TOS. It doesn’t work. You’re just giving dangerous and violent people a platform to organize, encourage and enable violence. As a platform owner, you can’t just hope they’ll behave if you treat them nicely.
charwalker 6y ago
Unless the content is called out for inaccuracy, bigotry, etc the user may not even be aware of the issue they create. Like if someone retweets a claim they believe but it is flagged as misleading and fact checked that might be the first time their views were checked and they might recognize their beliefs are wrong and rethink things. But they often won't and I think that is as much part of the problem. Trump won't rethink his position because a tweet was fact checked, he will attack the fact checker and supporters will do the same thanks to his example. There is no self reflection or awareness when called out and the poster becomes defensive, refusing to accept their comment as fake news or bigotry. If conservatives feel they are being silenced but cannot recognize that the views 'censored' are often bigoted, racist, or simply unpopular or abhorrent outside their bubble, then what do you to? If you call out blatant racism you are less likely to find the user recognize their racism, apologize, and not use such language again and more likely to be called a snowflake and have that behavior turned up a notch. If the original comment is then downvoted by the community or removed by mods then it will enforce that persons view that they are being attacked. This is incredibly common on Reddit where users often include a 'bring on the downvotes' type edit after stating something intolerant or clearly false. The solution is not to allow these views and opinions to sit unchecked but to recognize a modern civil society must be intolerant of intolerance and moderate appropriately. Downvote and report racist comments. Apply fact checking to statements, even those you believe or feel to be true as that is a sign of bias. If the user doubles down, move on as there is no value in arguing with someone putting their feelings and beliefs/bias above facts and reality. Perhaps when society or their online community turns their back on their comments they will finally have the time to reflect on why and recognize their behavior was unwarranted and unwanted.
danaliv 6y ago
> as people feel like they have less and less say in a political process they are more and more likely to start employing means outside of it Teetering on the brink of an epiphany.

by hpoe 6y ago

luckydata 6y ago

you're saying it like it's not already happening, and it's completely divorce from any actual reality or perception. When they say "I'm being silenced" they are simply pushing buttons they know work with more reasonable people, they are just using the "system" to their advantage. Conservatives in the USA are not a good faith actor and should never be taken at face value.

hpoe 6y ago
The problem with your response if you've fundementally divided the world into the fearless, social justice serving left and the corrupt, evil, fascist, right. It can be assumed that the far right is not going to change their mind at any point; however the majority of the world isn't far right or far left. Many people are moderates that could go one way or the other. By designating everyone who doesn't agree with you as "the right" that can't every act in good faith and is irredeemable you galvanize the more moderates. This incident won't have a substantive impact on the far right, but it may cause a change in opinion in more moderate voices. Essentially be advocating this black and white extremism you hurt your cause and play into the very narrative that those on the other side are saying.
- luckydata 6y ago
  I'm sorry reality has taken such a fascist bent but it's not my fault, it's just something we have to contend with now. But your both-side-ism is morally reprehensible in the context of what's happening right now.
  - Avicebron 6y ago
    What exactly is happening and how can you really say that the reality is now fascist? It sounds like you've already made the both-side-ism implicitly yourself.
    - luckydata 6y ago
      lol, you're clearly a concern troll. https://www.cnn.com/2020/05/29/us/minneapolis-cnn-crew-arrested/index.html https://www.cnn.com/2020/05/29/us/minneapolis-cnn-crew-arres... not fascist enough for you? For me that's plenty.
      - dang 6y ago
        Would you please stop breaking the HN guidelines with ideological flamewar and personal attacks? It's not what this site is for, you do it all the time, and we've warned you several times over several years. In fact I'm surprised we haven't banned you yet, and if you keep this up we will. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
koheripbal 6y ago
> Conservatives in the USA are not a good faith actor None of them? They are ALL acting bad faith? Is that a good faith argument?
NateEag 6y ago
I'm a United States citizen. I'm not a pure conservative, but I expect I hold several views you'd find repugnant and label as "conservative". For instance, I am strongly pro-life. Another one: I believe deeply in the existence of God (and other supernatural beings). I am, therefore, a bad-faith actor, if I'm following right?
- luckydata 6y ago
  no, you're not following, but I suspect you're doing it on purpose and that was my point. edit: let me add a proof point from something that matters to you. https://www.usatoday.com/story/entertainment/tv/2020/05/21/aka-jane-roe-fx-norma-mccorvey-paid-speak-against-abortion/5236476002/ https://www.usatoday.com/story/entertainment/tv/2020/05/21/a... Conservatives in this country believe in "small government", "individual freedoms" and "separation between church and state" until a large slice of their electorate turns out to be religious fundamentalists, then they start mandating transvaginal ultrasounds in order to get an abortion etc... Does that sound like intellectual honesty or good faith?
  - NateEag 6y ago
    My question was, in fact, in good faith. I wanted to know if you would apply your generalization to me, as the way it read it seemed to me like it would. Apparently it doesn't, so I guess I didn't get what you meant. I tried to go back and reread it, but it's flagged now and I don't see a way to. I think your example is actually closer to intellectual honesty than you think it is. "Small government" is not "no government". To a pro-life conservative, abortion is murder. I've yet to meet a conservative who doesn't think the government should be involved in preventing murder. Requiring you look at the victim before killing them is a pretty pathetic protection against murder, but it's probably better than nothing. I'd guess from your framing that you support abortion rights. If so, I can certainly see why this would look like intellectual dishonesty to you, but as I argued above, I think that's due to not understanding the people you're talking about well enough, at least in this case.

QuercusMax 6y ago

Alternatively - if those pushing the far-right violent rhetoric don't have as much of an audience, their support may fade because they don't have a platform. Deplatforming works.

hpoe 6y ago
It is an interesting question. Although de-platforming reduces the reach of a group does it increase the overall vitrol of the group, or the level of extremism? Although it may mean fewer people become part of the community it would also mean that those that remain with it are now more isolated from the outside world and increase the precieved level of persecution? Would this then correlate with an increase in action? I don't know the answer to this, it seems logical to me that each of these answers would be yes, but I definitely think it is a topic worth investigating and discussing.
Avicebron 6y ago
Do you consider the tweet far-right violent rhetoric?
- gknoy 6y ago
  When the president says "we will take over", and that "the shooting will start", that seems (to me) to be fairly authoritarian (right-leaning) rhetoric. Our laws explicitly forbid the national military "taking over" in such situations -- the national guard (state military) is who is supposed to be deployed.
  - woobar 6y ago
    Wikipedia says: "In 2006, Congress passed the 2007 National Defense Authorization Act, which gave the president the authority to mobilize National Guard units within the U.S. without the consent of state governors."
koheripbal 6y ago
> Deplatforming works. Any evidence for that assertion?

gbanfalvi 6y ago

Do you believe it’s more dangerous to: A: Remove a post encouraging violence with the risk it’ll anger a group of people? Or... B: Keep it and let it reach 80 million followers? There’s plenty of evidence that many sites (twitter included) allow violent speech from specific groups because they’re worried of the political backlash. These groups still complain about being silenced just the same, despite blatantly violating the TOS. It doesn’t work. You’re just giving dangerous and violent people a platform to organize, encourage and enable violence. As a platform owner, you can’t just hope they’ll behave if you treat them nicely.

charwalker 6y ago

Unless the content is called out for inaccuracy, bigotry, etc the user may not even be aware of the issue they create. Like if someone retweets a claim they believe but it is flagged as misleading and fact checked that might be the first time their views were checked and they might recognize their beliefs are wrong and rethink things. But they often won't and I think that is as much part of the problem. Trump won't rethink his position because a tweet was fact checked, he will attack the fact checker and supporters will do the same thanks to his example. There is no self reflection or awareness when called out and the poster becomes defensive, refusing to accept their comment as fake news or bigotry. If conservatives feel they are being silenced but cannot recognize that the views 'censored' are often bigoted, racist, or simply unpopular or abhorrent outside their bubble, then what do you to? If you call out blatant racism you are less likely to find the user recognize their racism, apologize, and not use such language again and more likely to be called a snowflake and have that behavior turned up a notch. If the original comment is then downvoted by the community or removed by mods then it will enforce that persons view that they are being attacked. This is incredibly common on Reddit where users often include a 'bring on the downvotes' type edit after stating something intolerant or clearly false. The solution is not to allow these views and opinions to sit unchecked but to recognize a modern civil society must be intolerant of intolerance and moderate appropriately. Downvote and report racist comments. Apply fact checking to statements, even those you believe or feel to be true as that is a sign of bias. If the user doubles down, move on as there is no value in arguing with someone putting their feelings and beliefs/bias above facts and reality. Perhaps when society or their online community turns their back on their comments they will finally have the time to reflect on why and recognize their behavior was unwarranted and unwanted.

danaliv 6y ago

> as people feel like they have less and less say in a political process they are more and more likely to start employing means outside of it Teetering on the brink of an epiphany.