3 ms·

That's a total mischaracterization of people who believe in free speech. I don't think people should say bigoted things. But more importantly, I don't think pe

That's a total mischaracterization of people who believe in free speech. I don't think people should say bigoted things. But more importantly, I don't think people should think bigoted things. If you shame and ostracize people into not saying bigoted things, but you don't solve the thinking bigoted things problem, then all you've done is hide the problem, and you're suddenly surprised when a bigot gets elected to the White House or a bigoted police officer murders someone and gets away with it (again). Censored bigots don't magically stop being bigots--they just go form their own communities. The way you get people to stop thinking bigoted things is not by silencing it, it's by explaining to people why they're wrong. Even if you don't change the mind of the bigot you're talking to, you might change the mind of someone else who is listening to or reading what you say. I'm not campaigning for people's right to be cruel and impolite. I'm campaigning for conversation that brings the truth to light and improves our collective thinking. And to be clear, I'm also not saying that free speech means you should have no consequences in any context. If you say something racist at work you should absolutely be fired. I'm saying that we need places where people can say racist things so that those racist things can be confronted with the truth.

UncleMeat 6y ago
> If you shame and ostracize people into not saying bigoted things, but you don't solve the thinking bigoted things problem, then all you've done is hide the problem This is not true. It does not solve that person thinking bigoted things, but it does help prevent them from turning other people into bigots. A huge number of people have fallen into terrible thought patterns after being exposed to these ideas through youtubers and faux academics. If there are fewer people with PhDs after their name willing to lend a veneer of legitimacy to defeated ideas then there will be fewer people drawn into the trap.
- kerkeslager 6y ago
  > It does not solve that person thinking bigoted things, but it does help prevent them from turning other people into bigots. I'm not sure how you came to this conclusion. Is it your belief that we are actually capable of silencing bigots? Keep in mind that the largest TV network in the US is Fox News, which is more-or-less openly bigoted. Bigots are capable of writing their own publications and building their own websites. And I'll just save everyone's time by pre-emptively shooting down that dumb study of Reddit which censorship proponents frequently cite[1]; there's absolutely no evidence that those users didn't simply move over to Voat. Put yourself in their shoes: if someone tried to censor anti-bigotry speech, wouldn't that mobilize you to find different avenues of speech and speak all the louder? What makes you think that bigots can't or won't do (or haven't already done) the same thing? On the contrary, trying to silence people is more likely to radicalize them than actually succeed in silencing them. [1] http://comp.social.gatech.edu/papers/cscw18-chand-hate.pdf http://comp.social.gatech.edu/papers/cscw18-chand-hate.pdf
- dependenttypes 6y ago
  > but it does help prevent them from turning other people into bigots This is the same as saying "I can't logically defeat their points so I will use underhanded censorship tricks". I would not care so much if it was only about actually bigoted things but it seems to include everything that goes against what the average SV google engineer believes. At the same time you are punishing these that are interested in seeing what the censored side thinks as well as the points against it.
  - UncleMeat 6y ago
    > "I can't logically defeat their points so I will use underhanded censorship tricks" You can't logically defeat bigots in a way that actually matters to them. If this were the case, then there wouldn't be bigots. The existence of systemic racism is not controversial among experts and hasn't been for a long time. Yet people insist on arguing about it forever. They don't care that logical arguments dismantle their beliefs. Because it is a trick. It is a denial of service attack.
    - kerkeslager 6y ago
      > You can't logically defeat bigots in a way that actually matters to them. The goal of public debate is never to persuade the person you're debating, it's to persuade those watching the debate. Sometimes you can persuade the person you're talking to, but that take a lot more sophisticated understanding of the other person than you're going to achieve if you simply dismiss them as illogical. > If this were the case, then there wouldn't be bigots. That simply doesn't follow. Bigots do change their minds sometimes, slowly over time. > The existence of systemic racism is not controversial among experts and hasn't been for a long time. Yet people insist on arguing about it forever. They don't care that logical arguments dismantle their beliefs. It's not that they don't care, it's that they don't agree that they are logical. Keep in mind, also, that logic is only as good as the evidence you feed into it. Logic in a vacuum of evidence is completely useless. People don't always change, but they do sometimes change. Also, keep in mind that censorship isn't the only poor strategy the left is employing here. Sure, getting rid of censorship and just arguing with people won't fix things, but that's in part because the argumentation of the left is crap too. The cry of many people on the left these days is, "Come to the left, we'll call you a racist!" and they're surprised when this actually pushes people to the right. People think minds can't be changed because they've never actually learned how to change minds. The truth has power. If you want people to stop supporting cops, for example: show them this video[1] and then point out that the murderer in that video now receives $2500/month in medical pension because he claims PTSD from the murder he committed. Try it out! It's not hard to science this for yourself. [1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VBUUx0jUKxc https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VBUUx0jUKxc
- zozbot234 6y ago
  > but it does help prevent them from turning other people into bigots. Except that it doesn't. If anything, it's a lot easier to play the "redpill normies" game when you don't even _have_ to phrase your arguments clearly and logically, because censorship gives you plausible deniability. Innuendo, Straussian irony, dog-whistling etc. etc. become the name of the game, and the most truthful, open and pro-social ideas are put at a serious disadvantage. > A huge number of people have fallen into terrible thought patterns after being exposed to these ideas through youtubers and faux academics. Maybe, but surely you would agree that there is a useful middle ground between sites like YT which actively promote the most outlandish and click-bait ideas (flat earth, conspiracy theories, discredited urban legends etc.) in the name of "engagement", vs. government-mandated censorship.

UncleMeat 6y ago

> If you shame and ostracize people into not saying bigoted things, but you don't solve the thinking bigoted things problem, then all you've done is hide the problem This is not true. It does not solve that person thinking bigoted things, but it does help prevent them from turning other people into bigots. A huge number of people have fallen into terrible thought patterns after being exposed to these ideas through youtubers and faux academics. If there are fewer people with PhDs after their name willing to lend a veneer of legitimacy to defeated ideas then there will be fewer people drawn into the trap.

kerkeslager 6y ago
> It does not solve that person thinking bigoted things, but it does help prevent them from turning other people into bigots. I'm not sure how you came to this conclusion. Is it your belief that we are actually capable of silencing bigots? Keep in mind that the largest TV network in the US is Fox News, which is more-or-less openly bigoted. Bigots are capable of writing their own publications and building their own websites. And I'll just save everyone's time by pre-emptively shooting down that dumb study of Reddit which censorship proponents frequently cite[1]; there's absolutely no evidence that those users didn't simply move over to Voat. Put yourself in their shoes: if someone tried to censor anti-bigotry speech, wouldn't that mobilize you to find different avenues of speech and speak all the louder? What makes you think that bigots can't or won't do (or haven't already done) the same thing? On the contrary, trying to silence people is more likely to radicalize them than actually succeed in silencing them. [1] http://comp.social.gatech.edu/papers/cscw18-chand-hate.pdf http://comp.social.gatech.edu/papers/cscw18-chand-hate.pdf
dependenttypes 6y ago
> but it does help prevent them from turning other people into bigots This is the same as saying "I can't logically defeat their points so I will use underhanded censorship tricks". I would not care so much if it was only about actually bigoted things but it seems to include everything that goes against what the average SV google engineer believes. At the same time you are punishing these that are interested in seeing what the censored side thinks as well as the points against it.
- UncleMeat 6y ago
  > "I can't logically defeat their points so I will use underhanded censorship tricks" You can't logically defeat bigots in a way that actually matters to them. If this were the case, then there wouldn't be bigots. The existence of systemic racism is not controversial among experts and hasn't been for a long time. Yet people insist on arguing about it forever. They don't care that logical arguments dismantle their beliefs. Because it is a trick. It is a denial of service attack.
  - kerkeslager 6y ago
    > You can't logically defeat bigots in a way that actually matters to them. The goal of public debate is never to persuade the person you're debating, it's to persuade those watching the debate. Sometimes you can persuade the person you're talking to, but that take a lot more sophisticated understanding of the other person than you're going to achieve if you simply dismiss them as illogical. > If this were the case, then there wouldn't be bigots. That simply doesn't follow. Bigots do change their minds sometimes, slowly over time. > The existence of systemic racism is not controversial among experts and hasn't been for a long time. Yet people insist on arguing about it forever. They don't care that logical arguments dismantle their beliefs. It's not that they don't care, it's that they don't agree that they are logical. Keep in mind, also, that logic is only as good as the evidence you feed into it. Logic in a vacuum of evidence is completely useless. People don't always change, but they do sometimes change. Also, keep in mind that censorship isn't the only poor strategy the left is employing here. Sure, getting rid of censorship and just arguing with people won't fix things, but that's in part because the argumentation of the left is crap too. The cry of many people on the left these days is, "Come to the left, we'll call you a racist!" and they're surprised when this actually pushes people to the right. People think minds can't be changed because they've never actually learned how to change minds. The truth has power. If you want people to stop supporting cops, for example: show them this video[1] and then point out that the murderer in that video now receives $2500/month in medical pension because he claims PTSD from the murder he committed. Try it out! It's not hard to science this for yourself. [1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VBUUx0jUKxc https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VBUUx0jUKxc
zozbot234 6y ago
> but it does help prevent them from turning other people into bigots. Except that it doesn't. If anything, it's a lot easier to play the "redpill normies" game when you don't even _have_ to phrase your arguments clearly and logically, because censorship gives you plausible deniability. Innuendo, Straussian irony, dog-whistling etc. etc. become the name of the game, and the most truthful, open and pro-social ideas are put at a serious disadvantage. > A huge number of people have fallen into terrible thought patterns after being exposed to these ideas through youtubers and faux academics. Maybe, but surely you would agree that there is a useful middle ground between sites like YT which actively promote the most outlandish and click-bait ideas (flat earth, conspiracy theories, discredited urban legends etc.) in the name of "engagement", vs. government-mandated censorship.