4 ms·

Honestly I think this just doesn't work out this way in reality. First of all, we know that deplatforming racists/fascists does actually help to stop the spread

Honestly I think this just doesn't work out this way in reality. First of all, we know that deplatforming racists/fascists does actually help to stop the spread of racist/fascist ideas. Secondly, and I think this is the more salient point, encountering racist/sexist/transphobic/whatever speech as a person who is the target of such rhetoric is immediately harmful and othering, especially when these views aren't actively challenged or disavowed by society. This doesn't even include the possibility that hearing hate speech might trigger some prior trauma experienced because of one's identity. By taking this stance, you're implicitly advocating the allowance of direct threats to other people's very existence, under the justitification that everyone will be better off that way because it's all out in the open. To me, that just sounds like you don't really understand the impact that hate speech can have on a person's ability to live with the same freedoms and opportunities that other members of society enjoy. Example: You have a job interview downtown, but you're black and the Klan has a parade scheduled that day, and you're scared of the calls for violence. You don't make the interview, so you obviously don't get the job. You were denied the opportunity to because of the 'free speech' of others. I for one would like to see more focus on Freedom of Association alongside Freedom of Speech in discussions like these - you can argue whatever you like, but nobody has to listen to you or give you a platform (and if you're a fascist, they shouldn't, and should be actively deplatforming you because your ideas are so awful/dangerous).

controversy 6y ago
My response is that everyone should carry. If the Klan goes nuts, the Klan gets shot. Eventually the system will react an equilibrium. I agree with your freedom of association. My only note would be that removing people from the means of financial transactions is the same as limiting speech.
- labster 6y ago
  I tend to prefer solutions to social problems where no one gets shot.
  - controversy 6y ago
    As do I. The fact of the matter is that the cops average 11 minutes to respond in good areas. They take longer in high crime areas. Further, we've seen that the cops are generally bad people. So leave policing to the average person. If the Klan attacks people, they can freely be shot. If the Klan parades around in their sheets, meh.
- x86_64Ubuntu 6y ago
  Carrying doesn't prevent anyone from getting shot. And there were plenty of instances in the US where the Klan attacked blacks with few repercussions.
- ben_w 6y ago
  Vengeance doesn’t bring back the dead. The prisoner’s dilemma has the equilibrium of defect-defect. If racists regularly shoot ethnic minorities, that means members of those minorities have good reason to shoot first in preemptive self-defence; there will inevitably be errors, and then the ethnic group the racists belong to will do the same, and suddenly you have a literal race war. Likewise for any other distinction that people fight over besides race.
refurb 6y ago
First of all, we know that deplatforming racists/fascists does actually help to stop the spread of racist/fascist ideas. How do we know that? Has a study been done? Are there surveys that track it over time? Racists beliefs have decreased over the past 50 years. I haven't seen any evidence it's spiked since the advent of the internet. More visible? Sure. But more visible doesn't mean more people hold those beliefs.
- fuvkthisguy 6y ago
  By induction - repeated exposure to ideas increases their staying power in the mind - see advertising. If one accepts the premise that fascist ideas spread by exposure, then one way to limit their spread is to limit said exposure. Sidenote: I'm increasingly frustrated with this increase in veneration of scientific studies, as if studies are the only way or even the best way of attaining or approximating truth. I would like to see more acceptance of lived experience as admissible evidence in matters of debate.
AnthonyMouse 6y ago
> First of all, we know that deplatforming racists/fascists does actually help to stop the spread of racist/fascist ideas. People often claim this but there doesn't seem to be any real evidence of it. You get a short-term effect because the target has to regroup, but then they move to a platform with no moderating influences and become even more radicalized. See Voat. > Secondly, and I think this is the more salient point, encountering racist/sexist/transphobic/whatever speech as a person who is the target of such rhetoric is immediately harmful and othering, especially when these views aren't actively challenged or disavowed by society. This doesn't even include the possibility that hearing hate speech might trigger some prior trauma experienced because of one's identity. Your theory is directly contrary to various clinical treatments for anxiety (e.g. exposure therapy) which are altogether more healthy and sustainable -- learning to accept that other people disagree with you and have contrary opinions is a much more robust solution than embracing fragility and trying to nerf the world. Inoculating the population to fascist rhetoric by publicly winning the debate against it with reasoned argument removes its power. Refusing to do so makes it stronger, because then when people are exposed to it, they are more vulnerable having never learned how to defend themselves against it. > Example: You have a job interview downtown, but you're black and the Klan has a parade scheduled that day, and you're scared of the calls for violence. You are trying to make a case against speech by making an argument against violence. If the Klan commits violence they should be arrested. If they are deterred from violence by the real threat of arrest then there is no reason to fear going to your job interview no matter what they say.
- heavyset_go 6y ago
  > Your theory is directly contrary to various clinical treatments for anxiety (e.g. exposure therapy) which are altogether more healthy and sustainable Reading slurs online isn't exposure therapy. Exposure therapy consists of controlled situations and counseling led by licensed therapists. No therapist would suggest that their clients should expose themselves to abusive and toxic environments as "exposure therapy". Please don't cherry pick techniques you don't understand from fields you aren't familiar with to support your opinions.
  - AnthonyMouse 6y ago
lopmotr 6y ago
Why do you talk so much about these abstract problems while neglecting the real ones? Black people get shot every day and it's not by the KKK or the police, it's by other black people. They are the real danger, not some parade with slogans. Other blacks is the major violence problem facing blacks in America today and has been for many decades but nobody seems to care. Blacks and Hispanics shooting members of their own groups accounts for most of America's excess shootings compared to other high gun ownership countries. But it doesn't fit well with your political ideology so you ignore it. A more realistic version of your job interview example is that it's in a rival gang occupied part of town. KKK isn't shooting blacks but black gang members are. Facebook doesn't seem to be able to stop that.
- fuvkthisguy 6y ago
  No, I'm pretty sure the cops are murdering black people. Your analysis is sorely lacking in context for <i>why</i> black communities have higher rates of crime (hint: it's systemic racism, namely poverty and overpolicing).
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]

controversy 6y ago

My response is that everyone should carry. If the Klan goes nuts, the Klan gets shot. Eventually the system will react an equilibrium. I agree with your freedom of association. My only note would be that removing people from the means of financial transactions is the same as limiting speech.

labster 6y ago
I tend to prefer solutions to social problems where no one gets shot.
- controversy 6y ago
  As do I. The fact of the matter is that the cops average 11 minutes to respond in good areas. They take longer in high crime areas. Further, we've seen that the cops are generally bad people. So leave policing to the average person. If the Klan attacks people, they can freely be shot. If the Klan parades around in their sheets, meh.
x86_64Ubuntu 6y ago
Carrying doesn't prevent anyone from getting shot. And there were plenty of instances in the US where the Klan attacked blacks with few repercussions.
ben_w 6y ago
Vengeance doesn’t bring back the dead. The prisoner’s dilemma has the equilibrium of defect-defect. If racists regularly shoot ethnic minorities, that means members of those minorities have good reason to shoot first in preemptive self-defence; there will inevitably be errors, and then the ethnic group the racists belong to will do the same, and suddenly you have a literal race war. Likewise for any other distinction that people fight over besides race.

refurb 6y ago

First of all, we know that deplatforming racists/fascists does actually help to stop the spread of racist/fascist ideas. How do we know that? Has a study been done? Are there surveys that track it over time? Racists beliefs have decreased over the past 50 years. I haven't seen any evidence it's spiked since the advent of the internet. More visible? Sure. But more visible doesn't mean more people hold those beliefs.

fuvkthisguy 6y ago
By induction - repeated exposure to ideas increases their staying power in the mind - see advertising. If one accepts the premise that fascist ideas spread by exposure, then one way to limit their spread is to limit said exposure. Sidenote: I'm increasingly frustrated with this increase in veneration of scientific studies, as if studies are the only way or even the best way of attaining or approximating truth. I would like to see more acceptance of lived experience as admissible evidence in matters of debate.

AnthonyMouse 6y ago

> First of all, we know that deplatforming racists/fascists does actually help to stop the spread of racist/fascist ideas. People often claim this but there doesn't seem to be any real evidence of it. You get a short-term effect because the target has to regroup, but then they move to a platform with no moderating influences and become even more radicalized. See Voat. > Secondly, and I think this is the more salient point, encountering racist/sexist/transphobic/whatever speech as a person who is the target of such rhetoric is immediately harmful and othering, especially when these views aren't actively challenged or disavowed by society. This doesn't even include the possibility that hearing hate speech might trigger some prior trauma experienced because of one's identity. Your theory is directly contrary to various clinical treatments for anxiety (e.g. exposure therapy) which are altogether more healthy and sustainable -- learning to accept that other people disagree with you and have contrary opinions is a much more robust solution than embracing fragility and trying to nerf the world. Inoculating the population to fascist rhetoric by publicly winning the debate against it with reasoned argument removes its power. Refusing to do so makes it stronger, because then when people are exposed to it, they are more vulnerable having never learned how to defend themselves against it. > Example: You have a job interview downtown, but you're black and the Klan has a parade scheduled that day, and you're scared of the calls for violence. You are trying to make a case against speech by making an argument against violence. If the Klan commits violence they should be arrested. If they are deterred from violence by the real threat of arrest then there is no reason to fear going to your job interview no matter what they say.

heavyset_go 6y ago
> Your theory is directly contrary to various clinical treatments for anxiety (e.g. exposure therapy) which are altogether more healthy and sustainable Reading slurs online isn't exposure therapy. Exposure therapy consists of controlled situations and counseling led by licensed therapists. No therapist would suggest that their clients should expose themselves to abusive and toxic environments as "exposure therapy". Please don't cherry pick techniques you don't understand from fields you aren't familiar with to support your opinions.
- AnthonyMouse 6y ago

lopmotr 6y ago

Why do you talk so much about these abstract problems while neglecting the real ones? Black people get shot every day and it's not by the KKK or the police, it's by other black people. They are the real danger, not some parade with slogans. Other blacks is the major violence problem facing blacks in America today and has been for many decades but nobody seems to care. Blacks and Hispanics shooting members of their own groups accounts for most of America's excess shootings compared to other high gun ownership countries. But it doesn't fit well with your political ideology so you ignore it. A more realistic version of your job interview example is that it's in a rival gang occupied part of town. KKK isn't shooting blacks but black gang members are. Facebook doesn't seem to be able to stop that.

fuvkthisguy 6y ago
No, I'm pretty sure the cops are murdering black people. Your analysis is sorely lacking in context for <i>why</i> black communities have higher rates of crime (hint: it's systemic racism, namely poverty and overpolicing).

deleted 6y ago

[deleted]