4 ms·

Pragmatically speaking, that will happen anyway. I’m not gonna use any platform that allows me to encounter Nazis. Voilà: the debate is stopped entirely, even t

Pragmatically speaking, that will happen anyway. I’m not gonna use any platform that allows me to encounter Nazis. Voilà: the debate is stopped entirely, even though the platform has done nothing to stop it. And on that topic, do we really need to debate Nazis? Like, are we so committed to the idea of moral relativism that we can’t draw some lines? Because frankly, I have zero interest in debating with anyone whether or not my family and I should be gassed to death.

kaba0 6y ago
I agree with you, and so it seems that actually allowing completely free speech is not that great of an idea in the end - as if it is banned from a major platform they will form their micro-platforms where they will think they are more numerous, and that their ideas are accepted. So I do believe that Europe see it well, there should be a certain border of free speech
throwaway3699 6y ago
Coming into contact with bad ideas is the risk we take to participate in any conversation. Every time people forget, the outcome is some horrible event like genocide.
- ninkendo 6y ago
  GP: > I have zero interest in debating with anyone whether or not my family and I should be gassed to death. You: > Coming into contact with bad ideas is the risk we take to participate in any conversation. Every time people forget, the outcome is some horrible event like genocide. Yup, we should never forget that rejecting arguments that promote genocide may lead to genocide! (Seriously, I don’t even know where to begin with this. Part of me thinks you can’t possibly be serious. But in case you are, maybe look up https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_tolerance https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_tolerance )
  - Recurecur 6y ago
    Thanks, I hadn't run across that writeup, though well aware of the issue. This was a little gem in that article, seemingly highly relevant now: > However, Rawls qualifies this with the assertion that under extraordinary circumstances in which constitutional safeguards do not suffice to ensure the security of the tolerant and the institutions of liberty, tolerant society has a reasonable right of self-preservation against acts of intolerance that would limit the liberty of others under a just constitution, and this supersedes the principle of tolerance. This should be done, however, only to preserve equal liberty – i.e., the liberties of the intolerant should be limited only insofar as they demonstrably limit the liberties of others: "While an intolerant sect does not itself have title to complain of intolerance, its freedom should be restricted only when the tolerant sincerely and with reason believe that their own security and that of the institutions of liberty are in danger."
    - lordCarbonFiber 6y ago
      So that's the stance "the liberties of the intolerant should be limited only insofar as they demonstrably limit the liberties of others" most of the major social networks take and it falls short in that it's hard to draw that line. (also the ideas of constitutional safe guards applying to private entities is a whole other can of worms; id argue the speech the government can limit should be a subset of what any given private moderator might choose to) Two examples: what im going to call the "im not touching you" type of harassment -- that is posting things clearly designed to hurt and wouldn't make sense in context unless designed for harassment. The platonic example here is the image macro that's the trans flag with the words "Your parents will burry you with the name they gave you". Cuel to the extreme, but doesn't technically call for violence against the given person, or the protected group at large so twitter and facebook, etc happily leave it up (and people wanting to be assholes hyper optimized pretty quick; ive seen the macro posted by multiple people in multiple places). Second being the idea of stochastic terrorism. Painting a group as an unchecked evil means you don't have to tell anyone specifically they should commit violence, but, it's hard to be surprised if they come to that conclusion. See the shootings in Charleston or Christchurch.
concordDance 6y ago
> I’m not gonna use any platform that allows me to encounter Nazis The main reason you think of your political opponents as nazis is because you haven't been interacting with them and talking to them. "Nazi" as a label is pretty useless as there are dozens of beliefs that are associated with "Nazi" (normally used as a label for rejecting any of the core tenants of progressivism), most people called Nazis might agree with a watered down version of one of them and disagree with the rest (The amount of conflation going on is a bit ridiculous, someone who believes in using military power to acquire resources and someone who believes in a "traditional" gender roles and someone who thinks those with learning difficulties should be steralized and someone who thinks Jews have too much influence in media are all "Nazis" but will agree with eachother on nothing else). Of course, because someone who voices one of the views will get ejected from their community and go to the community of rejects where other people who had a single "Nazi" belief are... they'll become radicalized and adopt some of the other "Nazi" views they would otherwise have opposed (though rarely all). :/
- watwut 6y ago
  Is your thesis seriously that nazi does not exists? And in fact quite a few of your examples in fact are part of that ideology.
  - concordDance 6y ago
    "Nazism" in today's usage is a collection of ideas (many with some ressemblance to the ideas of 1940 Germany). The label "nazi" is applied to anyone who believes any of them. The biggest reason why holding one of these ideas makes it likely you'll hold the others are the effects oulined above (people being pushed into the wotch community). So, in essence, the modern censorship environment created the modern Nazi. :D
    - watwut 6y ago
      And how do you explain the correlation in the past? Because the correlation of these ideas is not modern development, it was like that already during Nazi era - and when before it.
GoblinSlayer 6y ago
You don't have to debate anyone, debates are strictly voluntary.

kaba0 6y ago

I agree with you, and so it seems that actually allowing completely free speech is not that great of an idea in the end - as if it is banned from a major platform they will form their micro-platforms where they will think they are more numerous, and that their ideas are accepted. So I do believe that Europe see it well, there should be a certain border of free speech

throwaway3699 6y ago

Coming into contact with bad ideas is the risk we take to participate in any conversation. Every time people forget, the outcome is some horrible event like genocide.

ninkendo 6y ago
GP: > I have zero interest in debating with anyone whether or not my family and I should be gassed to death. You: > Coming into contact with bad ideas is the risk we take to participate in any conversation. Every time people forget, the outcome is some horrible event like genocide. Yup, we should never forget that rejecting arguments that promote genocide may lead to genocide! (Seriously, I don’t even know where to begin with this. Part of me thinks you can’t possibly be serious. But in case you are, maybe look up https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_tolerance https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_tolerance )
- Recurecur 6y ago
  Thanks, I hadn't run across that writeup, though well aware of the issue. This was a little gem in that article, seemingly highly relevant now: > However, Rawls qualifies this with the assertion that under extraordinary circumstances in which constitutional safeguards do not suffice to ensure the security of the tolerant and the institutions of liberty, tolerant society has a reasonable right of self-preservation against acts of intolerance that would limit the liberty of others under a just constitution, and this supersedes the principle of tolerance. This should be done, however, only to preserve equal liberty – i.e., the liberties of the intolerant should be limited only insofar as they demonstrably limit the liberties of others: "While an intolerant sect does not itself have title to complain of intolerance, its freedom should be restricted only when the tolerant sincerely and with reason believe that their own security and that of the institutions of liberty are in danger."
  - lordCarbonFiber 6y ago
    So that's the stance "the liberties of the intolerant should be limited only insofar as they demonstrably limit the liberties of others" most of the major social networks take and it falls short in that it's hard to draw that line. (also the ideas of constitutional safe guards applying to private entities is a whole other can of worms; id argue the speech the government can limit should be a subset of what any given private moderator might choose to) Two examples: what im going to call the "im not touching you" type of harassment -- that is posting things clearly designed to hurt and wouldn't make sense in context unless designed for harassment. The platonic example here is the image macro that's the trans flag with the words "Your parents will burry you with the name they gave you". Cuel to the extreme, but doesn't technically call for violence against the given person, or the protected group at large so twitter and facebook, etc happily leave it up (and people wanting to be assholes hyper optimized pretty quick; ive seen the macro posted by multiple people in multiple places). Second being the idea of stochastic terrorism. Painting a group as an unchecked evil means you don't have to tell anyone specifically they should commit violence, but, it's hard to be surprised if they come to that conclusion. See the shootings in Charleston or Christchurch.

concordDance 6y ago

> I’m not gonna use any platform that allows me to encounter Nazis The main reason you think of your political opponents as nazis is because you haven't been interacting with them and talking to them. "Nazi" as a label is pretty useless as there are dozens of beliefs that are associated with "Nazi" (normally used as a label for rejecting any of the core tenants of progressivism), most people called Nazis might agree with a watered down version of one of them and disagree with the rest (The amount of conflation going on is a bit ridiculous, someone who believes in using military power to acquire resources and someone who believes in a "traditional" gender roles and someone who thinks those with learning difficulties should be steralized and someone who thinks Jews have too much influence in media are all "Nazis" but will agree with eachother on nothing else). Of course, because someone who voices one of the views will get ejected from their community and go to the community of rejects where other people who had a single "Nazi" belief are... they'll become radicalized and adopt some of the other "Nazi" views they would otherwise have opposed (though rarely all). :/

watwut 6y ago
Is your thesis seriously that nazi does not exists? And in fact quite a few of your examples in fact are part of that ideology.
- concordDance 6y ago
  "Nazism" in today's usage is a collection of ideas (many with some ressemblance to the ideas of 1940 Germany). The label "nazi" is applied to anyone who believes any of them. The biggest reason why holding one of these ideas makes it likely you'll hold the others are the effects oulined above (people being pushed into the wotch community). So, in essence, the modern censorship environment created the modern Nazi. :D
  - watwut 6y ago
    And how do you explain the correlation in the past? Because the correlation of these ideas is not modern development, it was like that already during Nazi era - and when before it.

GoblinSlayer 6y ago

You don't have to debate anyone, debates are strictly voluntary.