4 ms·

But the current rules Reddit are still an invitation to "I'm not touching you Fascism". Fascists haven't gone away. They still are around and they still think f

But the current rules Reddit are still an invitation to "I'm not touching you Fascism". Fascists haven't gone away. They still are around and they still think fascist things, they've just metastasized into a subtler form of cancer. The only difference now is that we can't confront fascism with the truth any more. Ironically, by using the tools of the fascist against them we've implicitly admitted that the fascist is right. When we censor, we're saying that our ideas should be determined by who has the power to enforce censorship, not by compassion and truth.

pjc50 6y ago
You can't confront fascism with the truth, because they've no interest in playing that game and will laugh in your face. There is no statement you can present that will trigger a Damascene conversion.
- kerkeslager 6y ago
  You can confront fascism with truth, because the goal of that is to inform those reading the conversation, not to persuade the fascist. You're literally saying that because they're not playing our game, we should let fascists control what game is played.
  - bhawks 6y ago
    The meme that you can't have a conversation with a person that changes their perspective and ideologies is a false and harmful one. Look at Daryl Davis's amazing work getting over 200 klansmembers to turn away from the klan through honest conversation. Is it easy? Of course not. But it's not impossible to reach people - it happens every day. https://twitter.com/RealDarylDavis https://twitter.com/RealDarylDavis https://youtu.be/oGTQ0Wj6yIg https://youtu.be/oGTQ0Wj6yIg
    - kerkeslager 6y ago
      Wow, that's really interesting. Thanks for posting that.
ardy42 6y ago
> The only difference now is that we can't confront fascism with the truth any more. How effective has "confronting fascism with the truth" ever been? Especially on the web? My impression is that fascist/racist ideas aren't spread in open debates where the truth matters, but indirectly: through deniable memes and dog whistles initially, then slowly, as people's innate defenses are lowered, through many stages of more and more open exposition. > Ironically, by using the tools of the fascist against them we've implicitly admitted that the fascist is right. When we censor, we're saying that our ideas should be determined by who has the power to enforce censorship, not by compassion and truth. I think you're conflating censorship with exclusion, which every functioning social group needs to engage in to some degree. Also, comparisons at very abstract levels aren't very enlightening in this case. You really have to get into the details to make a true comparison.
- kerkeslager 6y ago
  > How effective has "confronting fascism with the truth" ever been? When white people were afraid of black violence, Martin Luther King showed them black people peacefully hand in hand with ministers in their Sunday best, walking toward Selma and remaining nonviolent even as they were met with violence. When straight people saw gay people as dangerous deviants, Harvey Milk showed them gay people in their families, jobs, and neighborhoods, behaving like the normal people they are. I personally grew up in a church that taught homophobia--my own opinions were fundamentally changed by one of my friends coming out in high school. Ask yourself your own question: when has censorship ever been effective?[1] I'd argue that, among other things the election of Trump is partly a backlash against attempts to control speech by the left. It's no mistake that a big part of the pro-Trump narrative was just that he "spoke his mind". [1] Whenever I ask this question, people always respond by pointing to one study which showed banning a few hate subreddits decreased hate speech on Reddit, so I'll preemptively respond to that by saying that there's absolutely no evidence that bigots on Reddit didn't simply move to Voat at that time.
  - ardy42 6y ago
    Those were IRL things that happened before people even had computers in their homes. We're talking about modern-day web forums. How effective has "confronting fascism with the truth" ever been, when the fascist is not being upfront about it, but rather posting hundreds of subtly racist memes and dog whistles to reddit?

pjc50 6y ago

You can't confront fascism with the truth, because they've no interest in playing that game and will laugh in your face. There is no statement you can present that will trigger a Damascene conversion.

kerkeslager 6y ago
You can confront fascism with truth, because the goal of that is to inform those reading the conversation, not to persuade the fascist. You're literally saying that because they're not playing our game, we should let fascists control what game is played.
- bhawks 6y ago
  The meme that you can't have a conversation with a person that changes their perspective and ideologies is a false and harmful one. Look at Daryl Davis's amazing work getting over 200 klansmembers to turn away from the klan through honest conversation. Is it easy? Of course not. But it's not impossible to reach people - it happens every day. https://twitter.com/RealDarylDavis https://twitter.com/RealDarylDavis https://youtu.be/oGTQ0Wj6yIg https://youtu.be/oGTQ0Wj6yIg
  - kerkeslager 6y ago
    Wow, that's really interesting. Thanks for posting that.

ardy42 6y ago

> The only difference now is that we can't confront fascism with the truth any more. How effective has "confronting fascism with the truth" ever been? Especially on the web? My impression is that fascist/racist ideas aren't spread in open debates where the truth matters, but indirectly: through deniable memes and dog whistles initially, then slowly, as people's innate defenses are lowered, through many stages of more and more open exposition. > Ironically, by using the tools of the fascist against them we've implicitly admitted that the fascist is right. When we censor, we're saying that our ideas should be determined by who has the power to enforce censorship, not by compassion and truth. I think you're conflating censorship with exclusion, which every functioning social group needs to engage in to some degree. Also, comparisons at very abstract levels aren't very enlightening in this case. You really have to get into the details to make a true comparison.

kerkeslager 6y ago
> How effective has "confronting fascism with the truth" ever been? When white people were afraid of black violence, Martin Luther King showed them black people peacefully hand in hand with ministers in their Sunday best, walking toward Selma and remaining nonviolent even as they were met with violence. When straight people saw gay people as dangerous deviants, Harvey Milk showed them gay people in their families, jobs, and neighborhoods, behaving like the normal people they are. I personally grew up in a church that taught homophobia--my own opinions were fundamentally changed by one of my friends coming out in high school. Ask yourself your own question: when has censorship ever been effective?[1] I'd argue that, among other things the election of Trump is partly a backlash against attempts to control speech by the left. It's no mistake that a big part of the pro-Trump narrative was just that he "spoke his mind". [1] Whenever I ask this question, people always respond by pointing to one study which showed banning a few hate subreddits decreased hate speech on Reddit, so I'll preemptively respond to that by saying that there's absolutely no evidence that bigots on Reddit didn't simply move to Voat at that time.
- ardy42 6y ago
  Those were IRL things that happened before people even had computers in their homes. We're talking about modern-day web forums. How effective has "confronting fascism with the truth" ever been, when the fascist is not being upfront about it, but rather posting hundreds of subtly racist memes and dog whistles to reddit?