3 ms·

There is a subtlety here, which I'll attempt to get into (and we'll see whether I'm downvoted for it too). "Death to all cops" is bad for one reason: it endors

by geofft 6y ago

There is a subtlety here, which I'll attempt to get into (and we'll see whether I'm downvoted for it too). "Death to all cops" is bad for one reason: it endorses the idea of extrajudicial, unaccountable killing. "Death to all Jews" is bad for two reasons: it endorses the idea of extrajudicial, unaccountable killing of people, based on an immutable aspect of their person and independent of choices that they have made. If I understand you right, you're not endorsing the idea of extrajudicial, unaccountable killing (but, being charitable to the downvoters, I suspect that they think you're endorsing the former statement wholesale). You're just protesting the false equivalence between these two statements. I would agree with that protest: there is a meaningful difference between, say, "Cops are controlling our society without accountability and we should remove them from power" and "Jews are controlling our society without accountability and we should remove them from power," and you can quite sensibly come up with platform guidelines that say that the former is fine and the latter is not.

happytoexplain 6y ago
>being charitable to the downvoters, I suspect that they think you're endorsing the former statement wholesale I'd be fascinated to know if this was true - I usually try to look at things from all angles, but I can't even see how any person could take this angle.
- geofft 6y ago
  Er, I should clarify by "endorsing" I mean "endorsing that Facebook should leave up messages saying 'death to all cops,'" not "endorsing 'death to all cops.'" I think that, in context, ihm's statement can quite easily be read as implying "...so, no, Facebook should not remove 'death to all cops' because it's not hate speech, only 'death to all Jews.'" I am guessing that's not actually what ihm is trying to communicate.
  - mc32 6y ago
    My point is in “death to _nouns_” there should not be nouns more deserving or less deserving of the treatment. All nouns deserve the same treatment. It’s like saying death to commies or death to all Marxist sympathizers is okay but death to Capitalists is not okay. No, either all are okay or none is okay.
    - happytoexplain 6y ago
      As a moderation rule, this makes sense, but it's too specific to be useful. What people actually say is usually more complex, and that makes it less clear cut which "sides" are more or less punished than others. But I realize you were just replying to sg47's comment, which I agree doesn't present a useful example.
      - geofft 6y ago
        Eh, sort of, as a moderation rule, the people who say "Death to those who have voluntarily chosen to do certain acts" get their post removed with a stern warning, the people who say "Death to those who were born in certain circumstances" get kicked off the platform. You can absolutely believe that both comments don't belong on the platform and respond differently. (We're also forgetting "Death to those who have been duly convicted of murder by a fair court of law," "Death to those who are actively threatening me with a loaded weapon," "Death to those who take up arms against my countrymen," and "Death to those who provide informed and free consent to it," all of which are positions that IMO should remain on your platform, if you value keeping a broad range of ideas. I might disagree with some of those but they're widely acknowledged to be civilized positions to take.)

by geofft 6y ago

happytoexplain 6y ago

>being charitable to the downvoters, I suspect that they think you're endorsing the former statement wholesale I'd be fascinated to know if this was true - I usually try to look at things from all angles, but I can't even see how any person could take this angle.

geofft 6y ago
Er, I should clarify by "endorsing" I mean "endorsing that Facebook should leave up messages saying 'death to all cops,'" not "endorsing 'death to all cops.'" I think that, in context, ihm's statement can quite easily be read as implying "...so, no, Facebook should not remove 'death to all cops' because it's not hate speech, only 'death to all Jews.'" I am guessing that's not actually what ihm is trying to communicate.
- mc32 6y ago
  My point is in “death to _nouns_” there should not be nouns more deserving or less deserving of the treatment. All nouns deserve the same treatment. It’s like saying death to commies or death to all Marxist sympathizers is okay but death to Capitalists is not okay. No, either all are okay or none is okay.
  - happytoexplain 6y ago
    As a moderation rule, this makes sense, but it's too specific to be useful. What people actually say is usually more complex, and that makes it less clear cut which "sides" are more or less punished than others. But I realize you were just replying to sg47's comment, which I agree doesn't present a useful example.
    - geofft 6y ago
      Eh, sort of, as a moderation rule, the people who say "Death to those who have voluntarily chosen to do certain acts" get their post removed with a stern warning, the people who say "Death to those who were born in certain circumstances" get kicked off the platform. You can absolutely believe that both comments don't belong on the platform and respond differently. (We're also forgetting "Death to those who have been duly convicted of murder by a fair court of law," "Death to those who are actively threatening me with a loaded weapon," "Death to those who take up arms against my countrymen," and "Death to those who provide informed and free consent to it," all of which are positions that IMO should remain on your platform, if you value keeping a broad range of ideas. I might disagree with some of those but they're widely acknowledged to be civilized positions to take.)