5 ms·

It's disgusting to see racism, transphobia, misogyny, and general hate speech spread by Molyneux and others be normalized as 'opinions'. They aren't interested

by zapnuk 6y ago

It's disgusting to see racism, transphobia, misogyny, and general hate speech spread by Molyneux and others be normalized as 'opinions'. They aren't interested in discourse, they only want to spread their garbage while cowordly hiding behind a dated concept of free (hate) speech. Molyneux especially dodges every debate where his oposition is somewhat knowledgeable.

iratewizard 6y ago
>dated concept of free (hate) speech Explain further how free speech is a dated concept we don't need anymore.
- zapnuk 6y ago
  Some content fosters the development of extremists/terrorists. This type of content does not use the platform in good faith. It's only objective is to trap listeners in a spiral of extremist content, basically brainwashing them. In some cases this even leads to violent acts. E.g. there have been multiple terrorist acts where it was determined that this extremist content played a crucial role in the enabling of the perpetrators. We typically do not allow direct incentives of violence or concrete threats. I don't think we should should we allow content where we know that it indirectly leads to more violence.
  - mantap 6y ago
    Without free speech, there would be no LGBT Pride in the first place. They were seen as extremists. Having free speech but only for people who say mainstream things is equivalent to saying "I like the world as it exists today". That is conservatism by definition.
    - zapnuk 6y ago
      Without discrimination there wouldn't need to be LGBT Pride to begin with. White-nationalism was tried and didn't work to say the least. Content creators, like the ones banned, advocate for a world of 50-200 years ago. They are conservatives. Limiting their reach is anything BUT conservatism by definition. Also, there are plenty of conservatives content creators who user lies and deception to spread their dated believes. The ban only targeted the worst of the worst, the ones that actually advocate for (white)ethnostates.
      - mantap 6y ago
        White nationalists are the canary in the coal mine. Sure, nobody cares about the canary itself. But everyone should care why the canary died, because it has implications for us all. What is more dangerous to society than white nationalists, are social media websites that want to be our public spaces for discussion while also policing which ideas are acceptable to talk about.
        zapnuk 6y ago
        Well if the canary develops into a monkey who convinces the most single minded people to do stupid stuff you might as well get rid of them and get a new canary - which is basically what happened here. > What is more dangerous to society than white nationalists, are social media websites that want to be our public spaces for discussion while also policing which ideas are acceptable to talk about. White nationalists kill and social media websites share some part of the blame. To say that the more pressing issue is that they police which ideas are acceptable is laughable when you consider the great extend they allow for extreme views. There are literally still holocaust denies still allowed on their platforms.
noxer 6y ago
There is no need to "normalized as 'opinions'" because these are opinions already. People have them about everything and whether wrong or right doesn't matter it's their opinions and they have (should have) the right to express them as long as they do that in a manner that makes listening voluntary. The concept applies to people who think the earth is flat and the concept applies to people who think trans people have a medical condition. There can't be a reason why it would not. The whole idea is that all opinions must be allowed to make sure there is none who can abuse any power by deciding whats allowed and what not. There is no other way. You can't every draw a line and say everything but X is allowed. Because if you do that you indirectly hinder people from questioning/understanding why X is banned. And you removed any resource about X so there will be people who never heard of X and cant find anything about X because its banned. Now how likely are they going to support that ban if they don't understand X and aren't allowed to talk about it. Not banning X so the majority can see X is "wrong" resolves that problem way better. Also "hate speech" is a made up nonsense term. Telegram only prohibits "call for violence". Which is kinda where free speech ends. It of course can be tricked by clever use of language. Instead of "Go out and destroy statues and the people who protect them!" which would be a call for violence. one could says "I think everyone should go one and destroy statues and the people who protect them." now it would be an opinion. The good thing is, the people who actually call for violence like terrorists usually don't bother with such trickery. Also just for clarification I listened/watched none of the people that got banned I don't care what their opinions are. I care about the right to express them. It absolutely doesn't matter whether I agree with what they say or not. I agree with free speech because any alternative is worse.
- zapnuk 6y ago
  All words are made up, and hate speech is an established term that you can look up in any relevant dictionary. > It of course can be tricked by clever use of language. Instead of "Go out and destroy statues and the people who protect them!" which would be a call for violence. one could says "I think everyone should go one and destroy statues and the people who protect them." now it would be an opinion. The good thing is, the people who actually call for violence like terrorists usually don't bother with such trickery. That's literally exactly what Molyneux and others do. Instead of directly advocating for violence they say things like: 'Whites and non-whites would be better of in their own ethnostates'. Now how do we get there? Well the same people also say that the current political system is corrupt to the core, where ((them)) (a jewish conspiracy) will hold the 'white man' down. Consequently some of their viewers take the matter in their own hands and express violence towards immigrants, most often any kind of brown poeple. Examples include the Canada mosque or the Christchurch perpetrator. Real world examples there hate speech led to vile acts.

by zapnuk 6y ago

iratewizard 6y ago

>dated concept of free (hate) speech Explain further how free speech is a dated concept we don't need anymore.

zapnuk 6y ago
Some content fosters the development of extremists/terrorists. This type of content does not use the platform in good faith. It's only objective is to trap listeners in a spiral of extremist content, basically brainwashing them. In some cases this even leads to violent acts. E.g. there have been multiple terrorist acts where it was determined that this extremist content played a crucial role in the enabling of the perpetrators. We typically do not allow direct incentives of violence or concrete threats. I don't think we should should we allow content where we know that it indirectly leads to more violence.
- mantap 6y ago
  Without free speech, there would be no LGBT Pride in the first place. They were seen as extremists. Having free speech but only for people who say mainstream things is equivalent to saying "I like the world as it exists today". That is conservatism by definition.
  - zapnuk 6y ago
    Without discrimination there wouldn't need to be LGBT Pride to begin with. White-nationalism was tried and didn't work to say the least. Content creators, like the ones banned, advocate for a world of 50-200 years ago. They are conservatives. Limiting their reach is anything BUT conservatism by definition. Also, there are plenty of conservatives content creators who user lies and deception to spread their dated believes. The ban only targeted the worst of the worst, the ones that actually advocate for (white)ethnostates.
    - mantap 6y ago
      White nationalists are the canary in the coal mine. Sure, nobody cares about the canary itself. But everyone should care why the canary died, because it has implications for us all. What is more dangerous to society than white nationalists, are social media websites that want to be our public spaces for discussion while also policing which ideas are acceptable to talk about.
      - zapnuk 6y ago
        Well if the canary develops into a monkey who convinces the most single minded people to do stupid stuff you might as well get rid of them and get a new canary - which is basically what happened here. > What is more dangerous to society than white nationalists, are social media websites that want to be our public spaces for discussion while also policing which ideas are acceptable to talk about. White nationalists kill and social media websites share some part of the blame. To say that the more pressing issue is that they police which ideas are acceptable is laughable when you consider the great extend they allow for extreme views. There are literally still holocaust denies still allowed on their platforms.

noxer 6y ago

There is no need to "normalized as 'opinions'" because these are opinions already. People have them about everything and whether wrong or right doesn't matter it's their opinions and they have (should have) the right to express them as long as they do that in a manner that makes listening voluntary. The concept applies to people who think the earth is flat and the concept applies to people who think trans people have a medical condition. There can't be a reason why it would not. The whole idea is that all opinions must be allowed to make sure there is none who can abuse any power by deciding whats allowed and what not. There is no other way. You can't every draw a line and say everything but X is allowed. Because if you do that you indirectly hinder people from questioning/understanding why X is banned. And you removed any resource about X so there will be people who never heard of X and cant find anything about X because its banned. Now how likely are they going to support that ban if they don't understand X and aren't allowed to talk about it. Not banning X so the majority can see X is "wrong" resolves that problem way better. Also "hate speech" is a made up nonsense term. Telegram only prohibits "call for violence". Which is kinda where free speech ends. It of course can be tricked by clever use of language. Instead of "Go out and destroy statues and the people who protect them!" which would be a call for violence. one could says "I think everyone should go one and destroy statues and the people who protect them." now it would be an opinion. The good thing is, the people who actually call for violence like terrorists usually don't bother with such trickery. Also just for clarification I listened/watched none of the people that got banned I don't care what their opinions are. I care about the right to express them. It absolutely doesn't matter whether I agree with what they say or not. I agree with free speech because any alternative is worse.

zapnuk 6y ago
All words are made up, and hate speech is an established term that you can look up in any relevant dictionary. > It of course can be tricked by clever use of language. Instead of "Go out and destroy statues and the people who protect them!" which would be a call for violence. one could says "I think everyone should go one and destroy statues and the people who protect them." now it would be an opinion. The good thing is, the people who actually call for violence like terrorists usually don't bother with such trickery. That's literally exactly what Molyneux and others do. Instead of directly advocating for violence they say things like: 'Whites and non-whites would be better of in their own ethnostates'. Now how do we get there? Well the same people also say that the current political system is corrupt to the core, where ((them)) (a jewish conspiracy) will hold the 'white man' down. Consequently some of their viewers take the matter in their own hands and express violence towards immigrants, most often any kind of brown poeple. Examples include the Canada mosque or the Christchurch perpetrator. Real world examples there hate speech led to vile acts.