4 ms·

> If you allow Islamic terrorists to publish their indoctrination materials, conversions to their cause will increase. This is especially what I'm sceptica abo

> If you allow Islamic terrorists to publish their indoctrination materials, conversions to their cause will increase. This is especially what I'm sceptica about, as well as the banning of publications such as Mein Kampf. It seems to me that the proportion of those that were first unconvinced, and then read such material and become convinced by it is negligibly small. Rather, most of the followers never actually read the publications and mostly got into it to feel part of a group as their friends were followers. They're typically publications that were never read by either the proponents, nor the detractors who wish to ban it. > Most of the censorship cases i can think of have been religious or conservative groups and in all those cases i thought the call for censorship was misguided. There are situations where I’m ok with censorship. One of them is Islamic terrorist propaganda and fake news. There is very few news that is not fake — the addage of “All news is accurate, except that one article about that one field one happens to be a specialist in.” seldom fails to hit the mark. That you need to specifically single out “Islamic terrorism”, opposed to simply keeping it about “terrorism” as a general concept also betrays a deal of specificity in your view, which is often the problem with censorship — that not all are censored æqual.

hef19898 6y ago
People become readicalized. Nobody s born a die-hard islamist, so yes, making it harder to access radical content is maiing id harder, but not impossible, to become radicalized. Goes for extreme right wing content and other religious extremists as well. And most news isn't fake, luckily. All news is biased, true, but that doesn't mean it's fake. Which is a big difference. That the press isn't doing itself a lot of favours by being what it is today is also true.
- CraigJPerry 6y ago
  >> And most news isn't fake, luckily Agreed - poor wording on my part above, i meant specifically islamic terrorist propaganda when i said fake news. >> making it harder to access radical content is maiing id harder, but not impossible, to become radicalized Agreed but harder is a good outcome. I'm fine with "better, but not perfect"
CraigJPerry 6y ago
>> It seems to me that the proportion of those that were first unconvinced That population is every person ever born - no one was born believing in Anti-semitism or Nazism. >> and then read such material Wait - we're not just limited to first order effects, someone who reads may relay those ideas to another in a different form. E.g. by starting a social gathering of some sort. >> and become convinced by it is negligibly small The Nazi party membership reached over 8 million people. >> There is very few news that is not fake Poor wording on my part, i meant specifically Islamic terrorist propaganda not fake news more generally.
- Blikkentrekker 6y ago
  >That population is every person ever born - no one was born believing in Anti-semitism or Nazism. No one is born tob believe in anything, however one typically has opinions on matters by the time that one is capable of reading. >Wait - we're not just limited to first order effects, someone who reads may relay those ideas to another in a different form. E.g. by starting a social gathering of some sort. And even there I feel the reading of material in print is negligible as a proximate cause to inspire that. >The Nazi party membership reached over 8 million people. And most had never read Mein Kampf. They were members because their friends were — most Christians have of course also never read a Bible from cover to cover.
  - CraigJPerry 6y ago
    >> And even there I feel the reading of material in print is negligible But the written bible needs to exist or the religion will fade out, correct? No one is able to adopt the practices of the Minoan religion. The Minoan religion is dead since their people have gone and they didn't write much, if anything, down and no one can accurately choose to adopt their beliefs. >> most Christians have of course also never read a Bible Why differentiate between them reading and them being read to by a pastor for example? What's the difference? Christian churches often choose to host bible classes, why would they promote use of scripture to further indoctrination if it's not effective? Why would they read to the congregation from the bible?

hef19898 6y ago

People become readicalized. Nobody s born a die-hard islamist, so yes, making it harder to access radical content is maiing id harder, but not impossible, to become radicalized. Goes for extreme right wing content and other religious extremists as well. And most news isn't fake, luckily. All news is biased, true, but that doesn't mean it's fake. Which is a big difference. That the press isn't doing itself a lot of favours by being what it is today is also true.

CraigJPerry 6y ago
>> And most news isn't fake, luckily Agreed - poor wording on my part above, i meant specifically islamic terrorist propaganda when i said fake news. >> making it harder to access radical content is maiing id harder, but not impossible, to become radicalized Agreed but harder is a good outcome. I'm fine with "better, but not perfect"

CraigJPerry 6y ago

>> It seems to me that the proportion of those that were first unconvinced That population is every person ever born - no one was born believing in Anti-semitism or Nazism. >> and then read such material Wait - we're not just limited to first order effects, someone who reads may relay those ideas to another in a different form. E.g. by starting a social gathering of some sort. >> and become convinced by it is negligibly small The Nazi party membership reached over 8 million people. >> There is very few news that is not fake Poor wording on my part, i meant specifically Islamic terrorist propaganda not fake news more generally.

Blikkentrekker 6y ago
>That population is every person ever born - no one was born believing in Anti-semitism or Nazism. No one is born tob believe in anything, however one typically has opinions on matters by the time that one is capable of reading. >Wait - we're not just limited to first order effects, someone who reads may relay those ideas to another in a different form. E.g. by starting a social gathering of some sort. And even there I feel the reading of material in print is negligible as a proximate cause to inspire that. >The Nazi party membership reached over 8 million people. And most had never read Mein Kampf. They were members because their friends were — most Christians have of course also never read a Bible from cover to cover.
- CraigJPerry 6y ago
  >> And even there I feel the reading of material in print is negligible But the written bible needs to exist or the religion will fade out, correct? No one is able to adopt the practices of the Minoan religion. The Minoan religion is dead since their people have gone and they didn't write much, if anything, down and no one can accurately choose to adopt their beliefs. >> most Christians have of course also never read a Bible Why differentiate between them reading and them being read to by a pastor for example? What's the difference? Christian churches often choose to host bible classes, why would they promote use of scripture to further indoctrination if it's not effective? Why would they read to the congregation from the bible?