6 ms·

This is a typical slight of hand in these discussions. We are talking about deeply intolerant, bad faith actors, and you substitute this with "censoring opinion

This is a typical slight of hand in these discussions. We are talking about deeply intolerant, bad faith actors, and you substitute this with "censoring opinions outside the mainstream". This is deeply dishonest by you. We are not talking about removing peoples right to use a platform because they are out of the mainstream and we disagree with them. That is NOT the reason. There is plenty of non-mainstream opinion around. There is plenty of things that a vast majority find disagreeable that no one is talking about removing.

throwaway373438 6y ago
I don't think the person you're replying to is being dishonest. You've simply listed reasons as to why this content isn't acceptable. Of course there are often reasons why content and beliefs might be rejected by mainstream thought -- "it's a pack of lies" is chief among them. There's a definition problem here. We could use "no one is talking about removing the content" as a rubric to determine whether content is truly outside of mainstream thought for example. Pointing out that there's diversity among mainstream thought is not at all the same as tolerating dissent.
- TeaDrunk 6y ago
  I don't understand how this isn't also similar to messaging abusive language or similar is technically "diversity in mainstream thought" (as in people can and will be abusive in some populations) and also should be totally barred (such as child neglect).
  - throwaway373438 6y ago
    Well, we generally do not prohibit abusive speech. What's prohibited is targeting people with speech who do not wish to participate (or who cannot, statutorily). Plenty of adults freely choose to engage in abusive relationships with one another and of course they are free to do so provided the other party is a willing participant. The same is true of non-abusive language. Consider a simple romantic overture. The lines are drawn around consent. Not content.
konjin 6y ago
>This is a typical slight of hand in these discussions. We are talking about deeply intolerant, bad faith actors, and you substitute this with "censoring opinions outside the mainstream". NO U. That aught to be enough for the argument to be closed, but since we like to pretend we're better than that: how can you tell that someone holds bad faith views? I do not have a machine to peer into the soul of man, neither do you. People can believe horrible things and think themselves good people, just wait 30 years and you will be one of them. That your views happen to be ascendant doesn't mean we should ban everyone who isn't.
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
- ngcazz 6y ago
  When Holocaust denialism spreads it erodes solidarity with its victims, and people who do it are wittingly or not contributing to build the conditions for its repetition. So yes, we should be having the argument.
- throwaway2048 6y ago
  There is a a very very close to zero percent chance that somebody that is denying one of the most heavily documented genocides in history is acting in good faith.
  - rightbyte 6y ago
    Holocaust denier is often used as a straw man of someone that estimate the exact figure to something lower than consensus. In Austria and France etc. the state throw people in jail for that. Like a Tiananmen Square policy in reverse.
  - konjin 6y ago
    The funny thing is that everyone in the West denies the Holocaust happened to the Slavs (5 million Slavs to 6 million Jews). Even though Hitler said time and time again that Slavs were to be exterminated from all areas west of the Urals. So when are we banning everyone who says only 6 million people died in the holocaust?
vixen99 6y ago
From your comment we don't actually know at all what we're (or rather, you) are 'talking about'. Asides from you about what these people are really like, whoever they are, don't amount to a salient point. Perhaps you can give an example instead.
NotSammyHagar 6y ago
The underlying problem is some people respond to intolerant, extremely misleading attacks. The past decade there has been an increasing ability to find people who are impacted by this propaganda much more successfully than in the past. Everyone points to Hitler - yes, he also was in the right time that his version of BS and motivation impacted people. Today those who want to can utilize these propagandistic methods much more than they can before. In the past if there was one person more capable of organizing hatred they'd have a smaller impact. Before newspapers it was just in a town. Then you had newspapers (like those in the south accusing blacks of rape and pushing lynching). Then later it was radio and Father Coughlin. Then TV and now the internet. Still the challenge remains how does anyone decide what's beyond the acceptable. I'm terrified that after Trump there will be a series of more successful destructive manipulators. I don't see why that wouldn't happen. The reason why this matters even more is the us system where a single vote in a state pushes all those electoral votes together, making it much much more powerful to focus energy on the small misleading stuff. The US has a structural electoral system that makes it matter so much more. Otherwise it would be for a smaller election. I think with time the majority of people will build up 'intellectual armor' against accepting lies. But it's impactful enough now that it's the potential end of america.

throwaway373438 6y ago

I don't think the person you're replying to is being dishonest. You've simply listed reasons as to why this content isn't acceptable. Of course there are often reasons why content and beliefs might be rejected by mainstream thought -- "it's a pack of lies" is chief among them. There's a definition problem here. We could use "no one is talking about removing the content" as a rubric to determine whether content is truly outside of mainstream thought for example. Pointing out that there's diversity among mainstream thought is not at all the same as tolerating dissent.

TeaDrunk 6y ago
I don't understand how this isn't also similar to messaging abusive language or similar is technically "diversity in mainstream thought" (as in people can and will be abusive in some populations) and also should be totally barred (such as child neglect).
- throwaway373438 6y ago
  Well, we generally do not prohibit abusive speech. What's prohibited is targeting people with speech who do not wish to participate (or who cannot, statutorily). Plenty of adults freely choose to engage in abusive relationships with one another and of course they are free to do so provided the other party is a willing participant. The same is true of non-abusive language. Consider a simple romantic overture. The lines are drawn around consent. Not content.

konjin 6y ago

>This is a typical slight of hand in these discussions. We are talking about deeply intolerant, bad faith actors, and you substitute this with "censoring opinions outside the mainstream". NO U. That aught to be enough for the argument to be closed, but since we like to pretend we're better than that: how can you tell that someone holds bad faith views? I do not have a machine to peer into the soul of man, neither do you. People can believe horrible things and think themselves good people, just wait 30 years and you will be one of them. That your views happen to be ascendant doesn't mean we should ban everyone who isn't.

deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
ngcazz 6y ago
When Holocaust denialism spreads it erodes solidarity with its victims, and people who do it are wittingly or not contributing to build the conditions for its repetition. So yes, we should be having the argument.
throwaway2048 6y ago
There is a a very very close to zero percent chance that somebody that is denying one of the most heavily documented genocides in history is acting in good faith.
- rightbyte 6y ago
  Holocaust denier is often used as a straw man of someone that estimate the exact figure to something lower than consensus. In Austria and France etc. the state throw people in jail for that. Like a Tiananmen Square policy in reverse.
- konjin 6y ago
  The funny thing is that everyone in the West denies the Holocaust happened to the Slavs (5 million Slavs to 6 million Jews). Even though Hitler said time and time again that Slavs were to be exterminated from all areas west of the Urals. So when are we banning everyone who says only 6 million people died in the holocaust?

vixen99 6y ago

From your comment we don't actually know at all what we're (or rather, you) are 'talking about'. Asides from you about what these people are really like, whoever they are, don't amount to a salient point. Perhaps you can give an example instead.

NotSammyHagar 6y ago

The underlying problem is some people respond to intolerant, extremely misleading attacks. The past decade there has been an increasing ability to find people who are impacted by this propaganda much more successfully than in the past. Everyone points to Hitler - yes, he also was in the right time that his version of BS and motivation impacted people. Today those who want to can utilize these propagandistic methods much more than they can before. In the past if there was one person more capable of organizing hatred they'd have a smaller impact. Before newspapers it was just in a town. Then you had newspapers (like those in the south accusing blacks of rape and pushing lynching). Then later it was radio and Father Coughlin. Then TV and now the internet. Still the challenge remains how does anyone decide what's beyond the acceptable. I'm terrified that after Trump there will be a series of more successful destructive manipulators. I don't see why that wouldn't happen. The reason why this matters even more is the us system where a single vote in a state pushes all those electoral votes together, making it much much more powerful to focus energy on the small misleading stuff. The US has a structural electoral system that makes it matter so much more. Otherwise it would be for a smaller election. I think with time the majority of people will build up 'intellectual armor' against accepting lies. But it's impactful enough now that it's the potential end of america.