8 ms·

This is an excellent summary of what's going on. Firing, cancelling, and silencing anyone with a 'bad' opinion doesn't convert them to a 'good' one. Instead it

This is an excellent summary of what's going on. Firing, cancelling, and silencing anyone with a 'bad' opinion doesn't convert them to a 'good' one. Instead it makes them more hostile and causes them to double down. I'm pretty confused how America keeps going down this path even after an actual 50% of the entire population revolted against the 'good' ideologies and voted in Trump with religious fervour. Pretending that people with different views don't exist, or that their views don't matter, doesn't make those views go away. Marginalising and attacking people for views they hold just hardens their resolve.

uniqueid 6y ago
> Firing, cancelling, and silencing anyone with a > 'bad' opinion doesn't convert them to a 'good' one. However it can prevent people with "different views" from evangelizing effectively. Look at the anti-vaxers, "chem trails", or 5G conspiracy theorists: the majority of these paranoiacs didn't independently arrive at these theories.
- missosoup 6y ago
  > However it can prevent people with "different views" from evangelizing effectively How'd that work out with the Trump election and the massive resurgence of outright racism and sexism? How far does one's subjective view of the world around them have to diverge from reality before they stop and think, huh, maybe this doesn't work at all. Silencing dissenting views has never worked in history. Not once. It just increases internal societal pressure until it reaches a critical point and boils over, usually in a physically violent upturn.
  - uniqueid 6y ago
    > Silencing dissenting views has never worked in history There may be a grain of truth to that, but I don't think a historian, even one who agreed with its thrust, would feel comfortable with it as a blanket statement. I don't really want to have this sort of heated debate this evening. Sorry.
    - missosoup 6y ago
      It's simple. Name one historical example where this strategy of systemic censorship of an ideology worked and didn't blow back. You can't. There aren't any. It always blows back. America is just failing to learn from a lesson that's been taught to various empires for millennia.
      - uniqueid 6y ago
        You got me! Enjoy your evening :)
      - watwut 6y ago
        > It's simple. Name one historical example where this strategy of systemic censorship of an ideology worked and didn't blow back. It worked majority of the time. It typically stopped to work only when power to be ceased to have power. Both nazism and communism were extremely successful in this. The monarchies did this successfully for very very long time. It ceased to work only when their lost power for unrelated reasons. Saudi Arabia is going strong. The suppression of nazi ideology post WWII did not lead to blow back either.
        missosoup 6y ago
        > It worked majority of the time. It typically stopped to work only when power to be ceased to have power. Which is to say it has never worked. Because all power structures eventually collapse and yet the ideologies they tried to suppress remain and rise again. And sometimes, it's actually the resurgence of those suppressed ideologies that destroys the established power structures. As is the case in the USA right now. > The suppression of nazi ideology post WWII did not lead to blow back either. You can't be serious. https://www.ft.com/content/dcd4aee8-936f-11e9-aea1-2b1d33ac3271 https://www.ft.com/content/dcd4aee8-936f-11e9-aea1-2b1d33ac3...
        watwut 6y ago
        By that measure, nothing works ever, because every system dies one day regardless of what they suspend. Such standard is completely useless. Also, "ceased to have power" typically means failure to suppress. That being said, Nazi Germany did not lost because of internally suppressed people raising, they lost because foreign forces won on battle field. They were quite successful in keeping control. > You can't be serious. I am serious. There is nothing to suggest that contemporary German issues have anything to do with post WWII suppression of Nazism. They don't.
- sfj 6y ago
  > However it can prevent people with "different views" from evangelizing effectively. Look at the anti-vaxers, "chem trails", or 5G conspiracy theorists: the majority of these paranoiacs didn't independently arrive at these theories. That's throwing out the baby with the bathwater. If everytime someone tries to blow the whistle on something, they are called a conspiracy theorist and allowed to be censored, you are basically giving the people in charge infinite power and zero accountability.
- flukus 6y ago
  > However it can prevent people with "different views" from evangelizing effectively. I really don't think it does, it just drives them to spaces where you don't personally see them and these spaces typically reinforce and strengthen their beliefs because they go unchallenged there. It also makes it easier to suck in others because those beliefs aren't being discovered in an open forum where they can be challenged. There's also a lot of cross pollination, the 5g nutters for instance have been driven from (or never part of) mainstream circles, so now their discussing things in their own spaces with other craziness thrown in, it will get mixed in with other craziness like being a jewish conspiracy to take over the world or some rubbish. The internet gave us a brief period where every groups craziness was open for everyone else to see, now we're reverting to make things were like before the internet.
- dependenttypes 6y ago
  If anything censoring them makes their opinions more credible.
vladvasiliu 6y ago
Is it really a case of wanting to silence those views? To me it looks more like PR. "We don't associate with people with bad opinions, so we're good". I would even go so far as to say that "companies" don't really care. The reason being is that for firing someone, you must have hired them first. But they consider there's something to gain, image-wise, by taking this kind of stand. This, they hope, can be transfered to dollars, so it looks like a good strategy.
finder83 6y ago
Exactly. I think seeing people being attacked is also causing others to double down. I don't know what to expect, but I wouldn't be surprised based on my conversations with conservatives who have been mostly silent if it backfires again and Trump wins in a landslide.
krapp 6y ago
>I'm pretty confused how America keeps going down this path even after an actual 50% of the entire population revolted against the 'good' ideologies and voted in Trump with religious fervour. About 60% [0,1] of "the entire population" voted at all, and out of that population, votes for Trump and Clinton were split almost evenly, with Clinton still getting a slight majority of (a couple of million) votes, which isn't actually relevant due to the electoral college. At the end, the margin that decided the election was about 80,000 people[2]. I'm assuming good faith on your part, but the premise that half the country revolted against political correctness by voting in Trump and handing him a mandate is a populist myth. Trump is the result of having gamed the system slightly better than his opponent and nothing more, with far less than half of the population voting for him, and many doing so because he was the only option their party provided. [0]http://www.electproject.org/2016g http://www.electproject.org/2016g [1]https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2016/11/10/13587462/trump-election-2016-voter-turnout https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2016/11/10/13587462/... [2]https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2016/12/01/donald-trump-will-be-president-thanks-to-80000-people-in-three-states/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2016/12/01/do...
- NhanH 6y ago
  I am just going to assume the GP already knew everything you just said and reply that you are missing the point. Change 50% to 30% and his point does not change. There are large number of American who voted for Donald Trump with religious fervor, and unless you are planning to do a Thanos, you will have to come to term with them.
- missosoup 6y ago
  You're splitting hairs. Fine, it's not 50%. It's 48% or 45%, of the voting population. What does it matter? The point stands that a statistically significant number of people hold a set of ideologies and views that has been marginalised. Before the 2016 election I would never believe that someone like Trump could win, because the media and prevailing signalling from America was that Trump-esque beliefs were a tiny minority. Clearly that turned out to not be the case. And that's the lesson from marginalising and suppressing 'undesirable' views. It doesn't make them go away. Here they are, dominating America. Deplatforming those people, depriving them of public voice, censoring their views, all that did was harden their resolve and create a massive blowback effect that shifted people on the moderate side of the spectrum towards radical. You can argue about fine detail stats all you want, but America is currently being run by Trump and all the so-called undesirables have risen to mainstream status. Which is what my comment was all about. I'm sure you'll agree that if winning the presidency merely takes a 'slight' advantage in gaming the system, then the vote was already split on a knife's edge.

uniqueid 6y ago

> Firing, cancelling, and silencing anyone with a > 'bad' opinion doesn't convert them to a 'good' one. However it can prevent people with "different views" from evangelizing effectively. Look at the anti-vaxers, "chem trails", or 5G conspiracy theorists: the majority of these paranoiacs didn't independently arrive at these theories.

missosoup 6y ago
> However it can prevent people with "different views" from evangelizing effectively How'd that work out with the Trump election and the massive resurgence of outright racism and sexism? How far does one's subjective view of the world around them have to diverge from reality before they stop and think, huh, maybe this doesn't work at all. Silencing dissenting views has never worked in history. Not once. It just increases internal societal pressure until it reaches a critical point and boils over, usually in a physically violent upturn.
- uniqueid 6y ago
  > Silencing dissenting views has never worked in history There may be a grain of truth to that, but I don't think a historian, even one who agreed with its thrust, would feel comfortable with it as a blanket statement. I don't really want to have this sort of heated debate this evening. Sorry.
  - missosoup 6y ago
    It's simple. Name one historical example where this strategy of systemic censorship of an ideology worked and didn't blow back. You can't. There aren't any. It always blows back. America is just failing to learn from a lesson that's been taught to various empires for millennia.
    - uniqueid 6y ago
      You got me! Enjoy your evening :)
    - watwut 6y ago
      > It's simple. Name one historical example where this strategy of systemic censorship of an ideology worked and didn't blow back. It worked majority of the time. It typically stopped to work only when power to be ceased to have power. Both nazism and communism were extremely successful in this. The monarchies did this successfully for very very long time. It ceased to work only when their lost power for unrelated reasons. Saudi Arabia is going strong. The suppression of nazi ideology post WWII did not lead to blow back either.
      - missosoup 6y ago
        > It worked majority of the time. It typically stopped to work only when power to be ceased to have power. Which is to say it has never worked. Because all power structures eventually collapse and yet the ideologies they tried to suppress remain and rise again. And sometimes, it's actually the resurgence of those suppressed ideologies that destroys the established power structures. As is the case in the USA right now. > The suppression of nazi ideology post WWII did not lead to blow back either. You can't be serious. https://www.ft.com/content/dcd4aee8-936f-11e9-aea1-2b1d33ac3271 https://www.ft.com/content/dcd4aee8-936f-11e9-aea1-2b1d33ac3...
        watwut 6y ago
        By that measure, nothing works ever, because every system dies one day regardless of what they suspend. Such standard is completely useless. Also, "ceased to have power" typically means failure to suppress. That being said, Nazi Germany did not lost because of internally suppressed people raising, they lost because foreign forces won on battle field. They were quite successful in keeping control. > You can't be serious. I am serious. There is nothing to suggest that contemporary German issues have anything to do with post WWII suppression of Nazism. They don't.
sfj 6y ago
> However it can prevent people with "different views" from evangelizing effectively. Look at the anti-vaxers, "chem trails", or 5G conspiracy theorists: the majority of these paranoiacs didn't independently arrive at these theories. That's throwing out the baby with the bathwater. If everytime someone tries to blow the whistle on something, they are called a conspiracy theorist and allowed to be censored, you are basically giving the people in charge infinite power and zero accountability.
flukus 6y ago
> However it can prevent people with "different views" from evangelizing effectively. I really don't think it does, it just drives them to spaces where you don't personally see them and these spaces typically reinforce and strengthen their beliefs because they go unchallenged there. It also makes it easier to suck in others because those beliefs aren't being discovered in an open forum where they can be challenged. There's also a lot of cross pollination, the 5g nutters for instance have been driven from (or never part of) mainstream circles, so now their discussing things in their own spaces with other craziness thrown in, it will get mixed in with other craziness like being a jewish conspiracy to take over the world or some rubbish. The internet gave us a brief period where every groups craziness was open for everyone else to see, now we're reverting to make things were like before the internet.
dependenttypes 6y ago
If anything censoring them makes their opinions more credible.

vladvasiliu 6y ago

Is it really a case of wanting to silence those views? To me it looks more like PR. "We don't associate with people with bad opinions, so we're good". I would even go so far as to say that "companies" don't really care. The reason being is that for firing someone, you must have hired them first. But they consider there's something to gain, image-wise, by taking this kind of stand. This, they hope, can be transfered to dollars, so it looks like a good strategy.

finder83 6y ago

Exactly. I think seeing people being attacked is also causing others to double down. I don't know what to expect, but I wouldn't be surprised based on my conversations with conservatives who have been mostly silent if it backfires again and Trump wins in a landslide.

krapp 6y ago

>I'm pretty confused how America keeps going down this path even after an actual 50% of the entire population revolted against the 'good' ideologies and voted in Trump with religious fervour. About 60% [0,1] of "the entire population" voted at all, and out of that population, votes for Trump and Clinton were split almost evenly, with Clinton still getting a slight majority of (a couple of million) votes, which isn't actually relevant due to the electoral college. At the end, the margin that decided the election was about 80,000 people[2]. I'm assuming good faith on your part, but the premise that half the country revolted against political correctness by voting in Trump and handing him a mandate is a populist myth. Trump is the result of having gamed the system slightly better than his opponent and nothing more, with far less than half of the population voting for him, and many doing so because he was the only option their party provided. [0]http://www.electproject.org/2016g http://www.electproject.org/2016g [1]https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2016/11/10/13587462/trump-election-2016-voter-turnout https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2016/11/10/13587462/... [2]https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2016/12/01/donald-trump-will-be-president-thanks-to-80000-people-in-three-states/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2016/12/01/do...

NhanH 6y ago
I am just going to assume the GP already knew everything you just said and reply that you are missing the point. Change 50% to 30% and his point does not change. There are large number of American who voted for Donald Trump with religious fervor, and unless you are planning to do a Thanos, you will have to come to term with them.
missosoup 6y ago
You're splitting hairs. Fine, it's not 50%. It's 48% or 45%, of the voting population. What does it matter? The point stands that a statistically significant number of people hold a set of ideologies and views that has been marginalised. Before the 2016 election I would never believe that someone like Trump could win, because the media and prevailing signalling from America was that Trump-esque beliefs were a tiny minority. Clearly that turned out to not be the case. And that's the lesson from marginalising and suppressing 'undesirable' views. It doesn't make them go away. Here they are, dominating America. Deplatforming those people, depriving them of public voice, censoring their views, all that did was harden their resolve and create a massive blowback effect that shifted people on the moderate side of the spectrum towards radical. You can argue about fine detail stats all you want, but America is currently being run by Trump and all the so-called undesirables have risen to mainstream status. Which is what my comment was all about. I'm sure you'll agree that if winning the presidency merely takes a 'slight' advantage in gaming the system, then the vote was already split on a knife's edge.