4 ms·
The problem I see with that line of argument is that it basically means you're arguing we can't do anything about it and just have to accept whatever actions pe
by klank 6y ago
The problem I see with that line of argument is that it basically means you're arguing we can't do anything about it and just have to accept whatever actions people take regardless of the impacts of those actions.
It reads to me like "it's hard, so let us just do nothing".
- hairytrog 6y agoThat's right. You have to have a society with enough moral fiber that it self-polices and restrains itself almost down to the individual level.
- jayd16 6y agoWhen even downvotes are considered censorship what form of self policing society can exist?
- jschwartzi 6y agoSure, but you seem to be implying that government has no place in how we self-police and restrain ourselves. Nothing could be further from the truth. Government is not an external entity which subjugates us, it is the tool by which we settle our grievances with each other without beating each other to death with rocks. To facilitate that, we give government the exclusive right to police us. And I would argue part of that duty extends to ensuring that the populace is informed and aware of the facts of the situation. In our rush to condemn the reprehensible aspects of government we have lost sight of the goal, which is to promote civil society and respect for our fellow man.
- mikkergp 6y agoI mean, Facebook just suspended Trump, so it seems like we are doing something, we’re just arguing about where the lines should be. I don’t think it’s wrong to note that revolutionary ideas both good and bad come from the fringes and that some consequential positive influences might be deplatformed in the future. This is one of the few times in history the “good guys” have had the power to control the narrative. We should acknowledge that.
- BoorishBears 6y agoMany comments are arguing saying this already crossed the line and that FB are not the good guys here. There are (or were) comments on this page with people saying they deleted their Facebook accounts over this. Of course I disagree and find it hilariously ironic that this would be the straw that broke the camel's back, but that's just me.
- TheOtherHobbes 6y agoIncitement to violent insurrection seems like a pretty clear example of "too far." So is peddling provable lies to extremists which are easily linked to terrorist acts. Ultimately you either think domestic terrorism is fine or you don't. I don't see a case for the media wilfully and knowingly misleading people and inciting violence.
- linuxftw 6y agoIf this was true, then prosecute for incitement to violent insurrection which is already a crime. We already have the means to police unlawful speech, censorship need not be one of them.
- ModernMech 6y agoBut the person inciting the insurrection is the President of the United States. He can't be prosecuted.
- linuxftw 6y agoThat's untrue. He can easily be impeached, removed, and then prosecuted.
- ModernMech 6y ago"easily" I guess we'll see. They couldn't get it done after he obstructed a federal investigation. They couldn't get it done after he extorted a bribe from Ukraine. Now he's incited an insurrection, so who knows if that's enough.
- artificialLimbs 6y agoWords != actions. Equating actions individuals take to the words they say is dangerous. We already have laws regarding inciting violence, and as far as I can tell, they work fairly well. Do you have a better proposal?
- djsumdog 6y agoWhy not just stop pretending human beings are too stupid to decide for themselves? "Oh but this speech is dangerous!" fucking. Bull. Shit. The moment you start to curtail speech and ideas, you are making a decision on what is and is not true. Fuck that noise. We are literally getting into the world if 1984 style though crime. The America I grew up in was not afraid of ideas.