5 ms·

The trouble is that by visibly taking action against a particular group, that group will feel the need to retaliate - this is the most sure fire way to radicali

by dafoex 6y ago

The trouble is that by visibly taking action against a particular group, that group will feel the need to retaliate - this is the most sure fire way to radicalise a group I can think of. Filter bubbles and shadow bans already exist, and while I think they are particularly insidious for people wanting to find multiple opposing views on something, they are invisible to the average user. Just make sure that Trump's tweets and interactions don't get shown on any feed except his own page, and any retweets are only shown to the people that retweet him, and be done with it. People still think they have the freedom to read and speak about naughty opinions, but they never get further than the "desk" of the person that wrote those opinions.

gfodor 6y ago
There doesn't seem to be much remaining restraint against suppression of conservative speech, since so many norms have now been revoked. You don't have to agree with these people to understand the basic formula that if a large enough group feels like they have been disenfranchised and are now being suppressed from talking about it by those in power the result is always the same. The way out of this was for the winning side to get out ahead of it and do everything in their power to legitimize the election for these people. They didn't have a moral duty to do so, but it was foolish not to, since now by not doing so we've seen a deep, cemented, hatred and distrust of the outcome and the other side that from my vantage point is materially worse than before and could have been avoided to a large degree. We're in trouble. People on the "winning" side of this dispute seem to be celebrating as the other side's hopes are dashed and their speech is marginalized, but in fact they ought to be terrified, since insofar as the other side isn't persuaded of their error and their beliefs deepen in light of the coercion being used against them being seen as a form of confirmation, things are going to be worse for everyone going into the new year. A strange irony from this situation that I hadn't realized is that it seems that if one is on the winning side of a dispute its the point of maximal confidence the other side will be coerced into submission that one actually should be the least confident that the dispute is going to be settled, since it means coercion has been accepted as the only possible method to settle it. In fact, its that moment, the one where persuasion is understood to not be viable, which presents the greatest danger. Our history points to another example of the point of presumed capitulation in fact being the start of anything but, but I won't make the analogy at the risk of it (rightly) being torn apart.
- rblatz 6y ago
  How is the president actively undermining the core ideals of our country conservative speech? His childish behavior is the problem, the fact that all these tech companies have to step in to prevent him from actively harming the country is a symptom of his own megalomania running unchecked for so long.
  - gfodor 6y ago
    YouTube has stated they will ban content, no exceptions, that contains skepticism in the 2020 election, and they've started doing so. If you can't recognize this for what it is, it's not my problem personally, but it will soon be all our problem if enough people like you are willing to tolerate it. (And yes, before you construct a strawman response, YouTube is within their rights to do this. But that has nothing to do with if it's something we think is morally correct to do, nor how we should think about the second order effects of doing so, and the dangerous precedents it sets.)
    - rblatz 6y ago
      This is no different than how our country operated for the entirety of its existence. The major news outlets never made it a normal practice to help crackpots spread their theories. YouTube has tolerated this for much longer than the never we previously had.
- pfdietz 6y ago
  The end game could be the GOP going full confederate and the Democrats nuking them with the 14th amendment, Section 3. "Sorry guys, this court judgement now says you're banned from holding any public office, federal or state." Simply giving aid or comfort to those engaged in insurrection triggers this section. In this sense, having actual bullets being fired by "rebels" would be the biggest Christmas gift the Democrats could get.
  - gfodor 6y ago
    And then what? People who have a mental model where if, God forbid, things come to that point, they will just come to an underpants-gnome like step that settles the issue seem ignorant of history. What you illustrate will just be a point of further escalation, one of a long chain that will lead to a real shooting war, unless one side turns away from the abyss on their own volition, not because the other side "nuked them" via a legal case.

by dafoex 6y ago

gfodor 6y ago

There doesn't seem to be much remaining restraint against suppression of conservative speech, since so many norms have now been revoked. You don't have to agree with these people to understand the basic formula that if a large enough group feels like they have been disenfranchised and are now being suppressed from talking about it by those in power the result is always the same. The way out of this was for the winning side to get out ahead of it and do everything in their power to legitimize the election for these people. They didn't have a moral duty to do so, but it was foolish not to, since now by not doing so we've seen a deep, cemented, hatred and distrust of the outcome and the other side that from my vantage point is materially worse than before and could have been avoided to a large degree. We're in trouble. People on the "winning" side of this dispute seem to be celebrating as the other side's hopes are dashed and their speech is marginalized, but in fact they ought to be terrified, since insofar as the other side isn't persuaded of their error and their beliefs deepen in light of the coercion being used against them being seen as a form of confirmation, things are going to be worse for everyone going into the new year. A strange irony from this situation that I hadn't realized is that it seems that if one is on the winning side of a dispute its the point of maximal confidence the other side will be coerced into submission that one actually should be the least confident that the dispute is going to be settled, since it means coercion has been accepted as the only possible method to settle it. In fact, its that moment, the one where persuasion is understood to not be viable, which presents the greatest danger. Our history points to another example of the point of presumed capitulation in fact being the start of anything but, but I won't make the analogy at the risk of it (rightly) being torn apart.

rblatz 6y ago
How is the president actively undermining the core ideals of our country conservative speech? His childish behavior is the problem, the fact that all these tech companies have to step in to prevent him from actively harming the country is a symptom of his own megalomania running unchecked for so long.
- gfodor 6y ago
  YouTube has stated they will ban content, no exceptions, that contains skepticism in the 2020 election, and they've started doing so. If you can't recognize this for what it is, it's not my problem personally, but it will soon be all our problem if enough people like you are willing to tolerate it. (And yes, before you construct a strawman response, YouTube is within their rights to do this. But that has nothing to do with if it's something we think is morally correct to do, nor how we should think about the second order effects of doing so, and the dangerous precedents it sets.)
  - rblatz 6y ago
    This is no different than how our country operated for the entirety of its existence. The major news outlets never made it a normal practice to help crackpots spread their theories. YouTube has tolerated this for much longer than the never we previously had.
pfdietz 6y ago
The end game could be the GOP going full confederate and the Democrats nuking them with the 14th amendment, Section 3. "Sorry guys, this court judgement now says you're banned from holding any public office, federal or state." Simply giving aid or comfort to those engaged in insurrection triggers this section. In this sense, having actual bullets being fired by "rebels" would be the biggest Christmas gift the Democrats could get.
- gfodor 6y ago
  And then what? People who have a mental model where if, God forbid, things come to that point, they will just come to an underpants-gnome like step that settles the issue seem ignorant of history. What you illustrate will just be a point of further escalation, one of a long chain that will lead to a real shooting war, unless one side turns away from the abyss on their own volition, not because the other side "nuked them" via a legal case.