4 ms·

I think what you’re saying leads to much, much more harm than good. 99% of the time, defending things that are “one step away” from communities with widely know

by mlthoughts2018 6y ago

I think what you’re saying leads to much, much more harm than good. 99% of the time, defending things that are “one step away” from communities with widely known hate-based agendas is actually just legitimizing those abusive views and is not contributing some sort of “intellectual, good faith exploration of the fringe” or anything like that. If there was a reliable way to detect the good faith attempts, then maybe, but it is so noise-jammed by the people taking hate or bigotry and trying to legitimize it under some false pretense of open inquiry that it’s not practically achievable. As for people using memes or tropes as stereotypes to reject them, I think that is super, super uncommon. Especially with communities like MRA, which is even seen federally as a domestic terror group, it is not at all an unfair generalization to reject the discourse commonly associated with that community. It doesn’t deserve any further due process or open forum - it’s just hate speech. I don’t think it’s fair to act as though instant rejection of that sort of community is unfair. It’s not simplistic reductionism based on an in-group, it’s really actually based on analysis of the group’s core tenets and goals and a widely agreed perspective that it’s inappropriate.

chordalkeyboard 6y ago
> I think what you’re saying leads to much, much more harm than good. 99% of the time, defending things that are “one step away” from communities with widely known hate-based agendas is actually just legitimizing those abusive views and is not contributing some sort of “intellectual, good faith exploration of the fringe” or anything like that. The point is that what is "one step away" is often subjective and relies on a web of inferences that the original speaker may not share. The views that are downvoted for being "too close" to "hate-based agendas" may not actually be close at all, merely shared by a variety of people, some of which also have hate-based views and some who do not. In other words it may be a mistake to infer that the view is too close to a "bad idea" if the idea itself cannot be labeled as bad. Refusing to discuss ideas that are legitimate objects of discourse because they are "too close" to bad ideas prevents reasonable-minded people from responding to those ideas if they are incorrect and drives discussion of these ideas to areas that have been taken over by extremists. > If there was a reliable way to detect the good faith attempts, then maybe, but it is so noise-jammed by the people taking hate or bigotry and trying to legitimize it under some false pretense of open inquiry that it’s not practically achievable. The remedy for this is to treat assume good faith and interact on the object level, explaining why an idea may be good or bad, and explicitly draw the boundary between the acceptable idea they put forth and the unacceptable idea that you suspect they really mean. > As for people using memes or tropes as stereotypes to reject them, I think that is super, super uncommon. Actually I see it all the time. > Especially with communities like MRA, which is even seen federally as a domestic terror group, it is not at all an unfair generalization to reject the discourse commonly associated with that community. How then could we ever discuss reform of child support or divorce laws if any argument that suggests that something might be unfair for men pattern-matches to "federally [designated] domestic terror" and is therefore forbidden? Actually, how does being federally-designated as terror make it somehow forbidden to talk about? What if the feds wrongly designated something as terror, how could we talk about that? > it is not at all an unfair generalization to reject the discourse commonly associated with that community. It doesn’t deserve any further due process or open forum - it’s just hate speech. I don’t think it’s fair to act as though instant rejection of that sort of community is unfair. So do you see how you have identified discourse that you associate with a community as the same as that community? What if your association is the part that's incorrect? What if a bad community discusses things that are both good and bad? This guilt by association is exactly the problem here. Observe that if an extremist community has somehow obtained a good idea, and you refuse to permit discussion of that idea because of its association with that community, you have given people who want to discuss that idea no choice but to discuss it with extremists. This occurs even if the idea is itself bad but the person wants to explain why it is bad. > It’s not simplistic reductionism based on an in-group, it’s really actually based on analysis of the group’s core tenets and goals and a widely agreed perspective that it’s inappropriate. Actually I think its based on pattern-matching and inference, both processes that cover a lot of terrain because they tolerate error in results.
- mlthoughts2018 6y ago
  > “ The point is that what is "one step away" is often subjective and relies on a web of inferences that the original speaker may not share.” This is just not true. Many many things in the sphere of alt-right hate speech, attacks on so-called “snowflake SJWs,” dismissal of the metoo movement, tacit endorsement of misogyny, dehumanization of immigrants and more are very widely understood now. Being “one step away” from MRA or Proud Boys hate speech or “one step away” from transphobic or homophobic hate speech is really not a widely debated subjective matter. These kinds of attempts to slowly legitimize hate speech are directly recognizable and ought to be called out and rejected. It is wrong to hide behind vague claims that because “it’s subjective” we should allow the Overton window to be dragged toward endorsement of hate speech. > “ So do you see how you have identified discourse that you associate with a community as the same as that community? What if your association is the part that's incorrect?” No, I do not think you’ve succeeded in making a case for this point. I am not substituting my association of speech in as an unfair characteristic of a group. That group is doing the association all on their own. This is exactly the kind of extenuating excuse-making that should not be treated as reasonable or civil inquiry. To me, your comment would be like saying, “Can’t you see how you are defining the KKK as a cross-burning anti-black group? You are letting your association of cross-burning as ‘bad’ lead you to ‘subjective’ judgment that the group is bad. Maybe it’s just an unusual social group and we should all be more open-minded.” To me, that is identical to what you are saying in your comment. Sometimes the answer is just no. The group defines itself with horrific practices or words, nobody else applies that association for them. When hate speech is slightly watered down and dressed up as legit inquiry it is even worse. It attempts to legitimize it like a Trojan Horse to establish unequivocally unacceptable beliefs as if they deserve equal footing in some “let’s all be above the fray and act like more evolved rational agents” disingenuous claptrap.
  - chordalkeyboard 6y ago
    > Many many things in the sphere of alt-right hate speech, attacks on so-called “snowflake SJWs,” dismissal of the metoo movement, tacit endorsement of misogyny, dehumanization of immigrants and more are very widely understood now. those things are bad in themselves, they are not "one step away." > It is wrong to hide behind vague claims that because “it’s subjective” we should allow the Overton window to be dragged toward endorsement of hate speech. If something is in fact hate speech, then it shouldn't be normalized and can be identified as hate speech and condemned for that. We were discussing things that are not hate speech but are associated with it according to certain persons. There are only three cases: something is hate speech, or it is not, or it is debatable whether it is hate speech or not. If it is hate speech, then it can be condemned as such. If it is not hate speech, it doesn't move the Overton window towards hate speech. If it is debatable then it is necessarily a proper object of discourse. None of this involves banning innocuous statements because someone heard a bad person say it somewhere. > No, I do not think you’ve succeeded in making a case for this point. I am not substituting my association of speech in as an unfair characteristic of a group. That group is doing the association all on their own. You are responsible for your interpretation, not some other people somewhere else. If your interpretation is correct then you can make that case. Good ideas don't become bad merely because they exist in the thoughts and speech of people who also have bad ideas in their thoughts and speech. > To me, your comment would be like saying, “Can’t you see how you are defining the KKK as a cross-burning anti-black group? You are letting your association of cross-burning as ‘bad’ lead you to ‘subjective’ judgment that the group is bad. Maybe it’s just an unusual social group and we should all be more open-minded.” This is a bizarre misreading of what I said. The kkk are racist by their own admission. I don't need to associate anything. This is more like you saying that being a fan of the Atlanta Falcons is a dog whistle for racism because everyone knows Georgia is full of racists. > When hate speech is slightly watered down and dressed up as legit inquiry it is even worse. It attempts to legitimize it like a Trojan Horse to establish unequivocally unacceptable beliefs as if they deserve equal footing in some “let’s all be above the fray and act like more evolved rational agents” disingenuous claptrap. unequivocally unacceptable beliefs are not the issue here. We are discussing statements that are unacceptable only because they associated with a bad group, not because they are bad themselves.

chordalkeyboard 6y ago

> I think what you’re saying leads to much, much more harm than good. 99% of the time, defending things that are “one step away” from communities with widely known hate-based agendas is actually just legitimizing those abusive views and is not contributing some sort of “intellectual, good faith exploration of the fringe” or anything like that. The point is that what is "one step away" is often subjective and relies on a web of inferences that the original speaker may not share. The views that are downvoted for being "too close" to "hate-based agendas" may not actually be close at all, merely shared by a variety of people, some of which also have hate-based views and some who do not. In other words it may be a mistake to infer that the view is too close to a "bad idea" if the idea itself cannot be labeled as bad. Refusing to discuss ideas that are legitimate objects of discourse because they are "too close" to bad ideas prevents reasonable-minded people from responding to those ideas if they are incorrect and drives discussion of these ideas to areas that have been taken over by extremists. > If there was a reliable way to detect the good faith attempts, then maybe, but it is so noise-jammed by the people taking hate or bigotry and trying to legitimize it under some false pretense of open inquiry that it’s not practically achievable. The remedy for this is to treat assume good faith and interact on the object level, explaining why an idea may be good or bad, and explicitly draw the boundary between the acceptable idea they put forth and the unacceptable idea that you suspect they really mean. > As for people using memes or tropes as stereotypes to reject them, I think that is super, super uncommon. Actually I see it all the time. > Especially with communities like MRA, which is even seen federally as a domestic terror group, it is not at all an unfair generalization to reject the discourse commonly associated with that community. How then could we ever discuss reform of child support or divorce laws if any argument that suggests that something might be unfair for men pattern-matches to "federally [designated] domestic terror" and is therefore forbidden? Actually, how does being federally-designated as terror make it somehow forbidden to talk about? What if the feds wrongly designated something as terror, how could we talk about that? > it is not at all an unfair generalization to reject the discourse commonly associated with that community. It doesn’t deserve any further due process or open forum - it’s just hate speech. I don’t think it’s fair to act as though instant rejection of that sort of community is unfair. So do you see how you have identified discourse that you associate with a community as the same as that community? What if your association is the part that's incorrect? What if a bad community discusses things that are both good and bad? This guilt by association is exactly the problem here. Observe that if an extremist community has somehow obtained a good idea, and you refuse to permit discussion of that idea because of its association with that community, you have given people who want to discuss that idea no choice but to discuss it with extremists. This occurs even if the idea is itself bad but the person wants to explain why it is bad. > It’s not simplistic reductionism based on an in-group, it’s really actually based on analysis of the group’s core tenets and goals and a widely agreed perspective that it’s inappropriate. Actually I think its based on pattern-matching and inference, both processes that cover a lot of terrain because they tolerate error in results.

mlthoughts2018 6y ago
> “ The point is that what is "one step away" is often subjective and relies on a web of inferences that the original speaker may not share.” This is just not true. Many many things in the sphere of alt-right hate speech, attacks on so-called “snowflake SJWs,” dismissal of the metoo movement, tacit endorsement of misogyny, dehumanization of immigrants and more are very widely understood now. Being “one step away” from MRA or Proud Boys hate speech or “one step away” from transphobic or homophobic hate speech is really not a widely debated subjective matter. These kinds of attempts to slowly legitimize hate speech are directly recognizable and ought to be called out and rejected. It is wrong to hide behind vague claims that because “it’s subjective” we should allow the Overton window to be dragged toward endorsement of hate speech. > “ So do you see how you have identified discourse that you associate with a community as the same as that community? What if your association is the part that's incorrect?” No, I do not think you’ve succeeded in making a case for this point. I am not substituting my association of speech in as an unfair characteristic of a group. That group is doing the association all on their own. This is exactly the kind of extenuating excuse-making that should not be treated as reasonable or civil inquiry. To me, your comment would be like saying, “Can’t you see how you are defining the KKK as a cross-burning anti-black group? You are letting your association of cross-burning as ‘bad’ lead you to ‘subjective’ judgment that the group is bad. Maybe it’s just an unusual social group and we should all be more open-minded.” To me, that is identical to what you are saying in your comment. Sometimes the answer is just no. The group defines itself with horrific practices or words, nobody else applies that association for them. When hate speech is slightly watered down and dressed up as legit inquiry it is even worse. It attempts to legitimize it like a Trojan Horse to establish unequivocally unacceptable beliefs as if they deserve equal footing in some “let’s all be above the fray and act like more evolved rational agents” disingenuous claptrap.
- chordalkeyboard 6y ago
  > Many many things in the sphere of alt-right hate speech, attacks on so-called “snowflake SJWs,” dismissal of the metoo movement, tacit endorsement of misogyny, dehumanization of immigrants and more are very widely understood now. those things are bad in themselves, they are not "one step away." > It is wrong to hide behind vague claims that because “it’s subjective” we should allow the Overton window to be dragged toward endorsement of hate speech. If something is in fact hate speech, then it shouldn't be normalized and can be identified as hate speech and condemned for that. We were discussing things that are not hate speech but are associated with it according to certain persons. There are only three cases: something is hate speech, or it is not, or it is debatable whether it is hate speech or not. If it is hate speech, then it can be condemned as such. If it is not hate speech, it doesn't move the Overton window towards hate speech. If it is debatable then it is necessarily a proper object of discourse. None of this involves banning innocuous statements because someone heard a bad person say it somewhere. > No, I do not think you’ve succeeded in making a case for this point. I am not substituting my association of speech in as an unfair characteristic of a group. That group is doing the association all on their own. You are responsible for your interpretation, not some other people somewhere else. If your interpretation is correct then you can make that case. Good ideas don't become bad merely because they exist in the thoughts and speech of people who also have bad ideas in their thoughts and speech. > To me, your comment would be like saying, “Can’t you see how you are defining the KKK as a cross-burning anti-black group? You are letting your association of cross-burning as ‘bad’ lead you to ‘subjective’ judgment that the group is bad. Maybe it’s just an unusual social group and we should all be more open-minded.” This is a bizarre misreading of what I said. The kkk are racist by their own admission. I don't need to associate anything. This is more like you saying that being a fan of the Atlanta Falcons is a dog whistle for racism because everyone knows Georgia is full of racists. > When hate speech is slightly watered down and dressed up as legit inquiry it is even worse. It attempts to legitimize it like a Trojan Horse to establish unequivocally unacceptable beliefs as if they deserve equal footing in some “let’s all be above the fray and act like more evolved rational agents” disingenuous claptrap. unequivocally unacceptable beliefs are not the issue here. We are discussing statements that are unacceptable only because they associated with a bad group, not because they are bad themselves.