4 ms·

> But they are amusing themselves, for it is their adversary who is obliged to use words responsibly, since he believes in words. [...] "They even like to play

> But they are amusing themselves, for it is their adversary who is obliged to use words responsibly, since he believes in words. [...] "They even like to play with discourse for, by giving ridiculous reasons, they discredit the seriousness of their interlocutors. They delight in acting in bad faith, since they seek not to persuade by sound argument but to intimidate and disconcert." This is exactly the mechanism of people who don't _really_ want to discuss anything. They throw badly compiled thoughts at you, and laugh at you if you struggle to explain why they are foolish.

mistermann 6y ago
I particularly like the irony of: -- the claim that "Steve Bannon used the Facebook platform to call for the execution and public display of the corpses of two public officials" and "This is unambiguously true, Steve Bannon's Facebook page reiterated the claims the same day..." ...combined with... -- "...for it is their adversary who is obliged to use words responsibly, since he believes in words. The anti-Semites have the right to play." ...when what Bannon wrote on Facebook was a direct quotation of what was said about him, here: https://populist.press/steve-bannons-twitter-account-suspended-after-calling-for-execution-of-dr-fauci-and-fbi-director-wray/ https://populist.press/steve-bannons-twitter-account-suspend... He even linked to the site where it was said. I'm not supporting what Bannon has said here by any means, but it boggles my mind why there seems to be this recurring pattern over the last several years where rather than simply using the actual, already more than bad enough words of Trump and his gang to criticize him, instead people seem to need to hyperbole-it-up for added effect. Claiming that Bannon was unambiguously not using a provocative/hyperbolic figure of speech, but rather was literally calling for someone's execution...seems a bit like cutting off your nose to spite your face (note: I am using that expression figuratively - I do not mean that people here or elsewhere are literally cutting their noses off). To me, much of Western civilization seems like the Movie Lord of the Flies [1]. Lord of the Flies is a 1954 novel by Nobel Prize-winning British author William Golding. The book focuses on a group of British boys stranded on an uninhabited island and their disastrous attempt to govern themselves. Themes include the tension between groupthink and individuality, between rational and emotional reactions, and between morality and immorality. Except in our case, I don't think there are going to be any adults showing up on the scene to stop us from killing each other. Sadly, real life is often not rescued at the last moment as it often is in the movies, as anyone who has read history would well know. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lord_of_the_Flies https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lord_of_the_Flies
- loopz 6y ago
  The word you're lacking is accountability, in case someone takes it on as a great idea. Then, the speech is not protected, but can be considered conspiracy. So reaction to it must come, even if it sinks everyone to the scum's level.
  - mistermann 6y ago
    I read this several times but I'm absolutely not getting your intended meaning - can you say it in a different form if it isn't too much trouble?
    - loopz 6y ago
      If someone acts on that idea, the speech may not be protected.
      - mistermann 6y ago
        Ok I see now (if someone was to act "due to" speech like this, it might be used as "justification" for more censorship - if I'm not misunderstanding). But I don't see what that has to do with what I wrote, which was regarding the pattern of "dishonesty" when it comes to the discussion of reality. I consider this to be a very dangerous break from our cultural history. There are many examples in history of where this road can lead, but not only are we not exhibiting caution, the overwhelming sense I get is enthusiasm at this development. One probably shouldn't judge the general public in this regard too harshly, but thinking is what the HN crowd is supposed to be good at.
        loopz 6y ago
        History has examples of previous times when populists flirted with the idea of abolishing democracy and using violence as means for "might makes right". Taking it lightly or in defense of free speech blindly, is not prudent. I don't believe we can or should ban divergent speech either, but maybe such people should make their own platform. Trying to make a rational argument when all they do is ridicule, insult and make hyperboles, making policy on feelings like abuse and threats, doesn't lead to anything positive. Democracy need a balance and spectrum, otherwise there'll be a One Party System, and people will be rationalizing that too. History shows us what happens when these sentiments leap out of control.
sidpatil 6y ago
This is known as the Gish gallop. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gish_gallop https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gish_gallop
- sjg007 6y ago
  The Brits are pretty good at countering this.
- slg 6y ago
  Bannon has admitted that this is a strategy he uses. Although with his eloquence he coined a different phrase for the practice: "flood the zone with shit"[1]. [1] - https://twitter.com/brianstelter/status/963076380505370624 https://twitter.com/brianstelter/status/963076380505370624

mistermann 6y ago

I particularly like the irony of: -- the claim that "Steve Bannon used the Facebook platform to call for the execution and public display of the corpses of two public officials" and "This is unambiguously true, Steve Bannon's Facebook page reiterated the claims the same day..." ...combined with... -- "...for it is their adversary who is obliged to use words responsibly, since he believes in words. The anti-Semites have the right to play." ...when what Bannon wrote on Facebook was a direct quotation of what was said about him, here: https://populist.press/steve-bannons-twitter-account-suspended-after-calling-for-execution-of-dr-fauci-and-fbi-director-wray/ https://populist.press/steve-bannons-twitter-account-suspend... He even linked to the site where it was said. I'm not supporting what Bannon has said here by any means, but it boggles my mind why there seems to be this recurring pattern over the last several years where rather than simply using the actual, already more than bad enough words of Trump and his gang to criticize him, instead people seem to need to hyperbole-it-up for added effect. Claiming that Bannon was unambiguously not using a provocative/hyperbolic figure of speech, but rather was literally calling for someone's execution...seems a bit like cutting off your nose to spite your face (note: I am using that expression figuratively - I do not mean that people here or elsewhere are literally cutting their noses off). To me, much of Western civilization seems like the Movie Lord of the Flies [1]. Lord of the Flies is a 1954 novel by Nobel Prize-winning British author William Golding. The book focuses on a group of British boys stranded on an uninhabited island and their disastrous attempt to govern themselves. Themes include the tension between groupthink and individuality, between rational and emotional reactions, and between morality and immorality. Except in our case, I don't think there are going to be any adults showing up on the scene to stop us from killing each other. Sadly, real life is often not rescued at the last moment as it often is in the movies, as anyone who has read history would well know. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lord_of_the_Flies https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lord_of_the_Flies

loopz 6y ago
The word you're lacking is accountability, in case someone takes it on as a great idea. Then, the speech is not protected, but can be considered conspiracy. So reaction to it must come, even if it sinks everyone to the scum's level.
- mistermann 6y ago
  I read this several times but I'm absolutely not getting your intended meaning - can you say it in a different form if it isn't too much trouble?
  - loopz 6y ago
    If someone acts on that idea, the speech may not be protected.
    - mistermann 6y ago
      Ok I see now (if someone was to act "due to" speech like this, it might be used as "justification" for more censorship - if I'm not misunderstanding). But I don't see what that has to do with what I wrote, which was regarding the pattern of "dishonesty" when it comes to the discussion of reality. I consider this to be a very dangerous break from our cultural history. There are many examples in history of where this road can lead, but not only are we not exhibiting caution, the overwhelming sense I get is enthusiasm at this development. One probably shouldn't judge the general public in this regard too harshly, but thinking is what the HN crowd is supposed to be good at.
      - loopz 6y ago
        History has examples of previous times when populists flirted with the idea of abolishing democracy and using violence as means for "might makes right". Taking it lightly or in defense of free speech blindly, is not prudent. I don't believe we can or should ban divergent speech either, but maybe such people should make their own platform. Trying to make a rational argument when all they do is ridicule, insult and make hyperboles, making policy on feelings like abuse and threats, doesn't lead to anything positive. Democracy need a balance and spectrum, otherwise there'll be a One Party System, and people will be rationalizing that too. History shows us what happens when these sentiments leap out of control.

sidpatil 6y ago

This is known as the Gish gallop. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gish_gallop https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gish_gallop

sjg007 6y ago
The Brits are pretty good at countering this.
slg 6y ago
Bannon has admitted that this is a strategy he uses. Although with his eloquence he coined a different phrase for the practice: "flood the zone with shit"[1]. [1] - https://twitter.com/brianstelter/status/963076380505370624 https://twitter.com/brianstelter/status/963076380505370624