4 ms·

The reason the US and the western world have been able to succeed and make such progress is because of the freedom to point out the failures and do something be

The reason the US and the western world have been able to succeed and make such progress is because of the freedom to point out the failures and do something better. Whether that's building a better phone, medical procedure, or communication network, or rocket, historically you've been able to point out that the emperor has no clothes, and then build something better. This is what terrifies me about the current attitudes on both sides of the aisle - we're turning from, "I disagree but will fight for your right to say it" to "if I disagree you should be deplatformed and fired and mobbed."

AnIdiotOnTheNet 6y ago
Yeah, there definitely seems to be a lack of good-faith in almost all discourse these days. I don't know if that can be fixed without resorting to totalitarian control of information because there will always be incentive for malicious actors to argue in bad-faith, and I think recent events have shown that such propaganda can quite easily overwhelm good-faith efforts. Of course, totalitarian control of information has many of its own downsides so I'd rather not have that either.
- AnimalMuppet 6y ago
  A totalitarian control of information is not going to lead to good faith discussions. First, the totalitarians won't control the information in good faith. Second, even if you found good faith people to control the information, the malicious actors who argue in bad faith won't go away just because you control the information that they can argue about.
achr2 6y ago
Seriously, "both sides of the aisle"? One side is saying "Here is categorical evidence of an issue", the other side is saying "the other side are demons and the sky is green.". There is no middle ground if one side is actively participating in bad faith.
- kbutler 6y ago
  Protests and riots: Lockdown protests - super spreader events or valid exercises of freedom of speech? George Floyd protests - super spreader events or valid exercises of free speech? Riots attacking federal court house in Portland - treason or valid exercise of free speech? Riots attacking capitol building in washington, d.c. - fortunately, everyone seems to agree it's bad. Oh, but it's apparently a super spreader event... Remind me which side is participating in bad faith?
  - jjaredsimpson 6y ago
    Is this argument by syntactic substitution?
    - kbutler 6y ago
      This is an obvious example of both sides of the political spectrum advocating either side of a single issue depending on the context. That's the clearest way to show that both sides argue in bad faith, rather than simply presenting facts or standing on principle. There are lots of other examples, but that's a prominent, current case where both sides argue both sides of the argument. Another prominent case is arguments for or against confirming judicial appointments, but that's been out of the news for an eternity now.
jchw 6y ago
Imo, it’s strictly bad faith to be blamed: on the right, there is a refusal to separate the violent, unprotected speech from the protected opinions. Meanwhile, the left seems to be refusing to accept that coercing people to act a certain way does not actually change what people believe. A list of banned words and opinions will never make the world progressive. Deplatforming people over truly just opinions or mannerisms is a temporary win. Social media isn’t really a moderated community. It has “rules” and you can get “banned,” but Twitter is less “moderated” than a typical comments section. So when people act in bad faith, there’s no recourse unless they explicitly break rules. On say, a typical old Internet forum, it’d probably mostly be considered dramatic to do call-outs, not to mention pointless due to the disconnected nature of identity on the old internet. On Twitter not only is it common but you can make as many bad faith arguments and take as many things as far out of context as you like in attempts at character assassination. You can concern troll, you can use known misleading sources, etc. and even if someone calls you on it, you can just do it again later. As usual though, most people are pretty “selfish.” A lot of people “get away” with being not “progressive“ enough because people like them. What happens is eventually someone has a trivial dispute with them and decides to seize the moment to pull out as much ammo as possible, which is how you end up with 50 page google docs arguing as hard as they can that every mistake someone has ever made is evidence that they are irredeemable. So in self-preservation people become dishonest. And I mean I’ve seen it first-hand. Their beliefs haven’t changed, but they have to say certain things publicly in order to keep their status. And other people who also don’t believe in the things they're saying will express their disappointment if they ever deviate. It’s an amazing circus show. Things have gotten very perverted. With the right, they are of course taking advantage of this in the worst faith way possible by using it as an argument against being progressive in and of itself. It’s not the methods, it’s the ideology. But in the same way a civil rights riot and a doomsday cult riot are not the same thing, there’s always going to be too much nuance for a conclusion that oversimplified. Meanwhile, sites like Twitter simply do not give a fuck. All they care about is brand accounts, ads, and public image. But mostly the first two. So fat chance if they’re going to risk lowering engagement to help fix broken incentives.
- SomeCallMeTim 6y ago
  > A list of banned words and opinions will never make the world progressive. Deplatforming people over truly just opinions or mannerisms is a temporary win. When people know their opinions are generally considered reprehensible, they hide them. I can agree with that. But if those opinions are successfully hidden or pushed underground, and the next generation is predominantly exposed to positive values, the world does become more progressive. Individuals change only a small amount, you're right, but society does change for the better over time. It's when echo-chambers of intolerance exist that attitudes of intolerance and selfishness can be amplified and push the world in the wrong direction.
ReactiveJelly 6y ago
My take has some nuance so you will probably never see it on the likes of Twitter: I'm against mob violence, I hate the death penalty, but I'm still okay with de-platforming. It has a use. There is a difference between "This person is inciting violence" and "This person is disagreeing with us" and the line has not been blurred yet. I'm glad Trump got banned, because he is an Internet troll who happens to hold office. I'm glad that a few rioters were arrested. I hope they are convicted and serve jail time. I hope they live to realize why they were wrong. If they die it means I will never have them on my side. I don't want anyone to die. Death, unlike de-platforming, cannot be undone if it turns out we are wrong. So please don't lump me in with people calling for guillotines and mob violence.

AnIdiotOnTheNet 6y ago

Yeah, there definitely seems to be a lack of good-faith in almost all discourse these days. I don't know if that can be fixed without resorting to totalitarian control of information because there will always be incentive for malicious actors to argue in bad-faith, and I think recent events have shown that such propaganda can quite easily overwhelm good-faith efforts. Of course, totalitarian control of information has many of its own downsides so I'd rather not have that either.

AnimalMuppet 6y ago
A totalitarian control of information is not going to lead to good faith discussions. First, the totalitarians won't control the information in good faith. Second, even if you found good faith people to control the information, the malicious actors who argue in bad faith won't go away just because you control the information that they can argue about.

achr2 6y ago

Seriously, "both sides of the aisle"? One side is saying "Here is categorical evidence of an issue", the other side is saying "the other side are demons and the sky is green.". There is no middle ground if one side is actively participating in bad faith.

kbutler 6y ago
Protests and riots: Lockdown protests - super spreader events or valid exercises of freedom of speech? George Floyd protests - super spreader events or valid exercises of free speech? Riots attacking federal court house in Portland - treason or valid exercise of free speech? Riots attacking capitol building in washington, d.c. - fortunately, everyone seems to agree it's bad. Oh, but it's apparently a super spreader event... Remind me which side is participating in bad faith?
- jjaredsimpson 6y ago
  Is this argument by syntactic substitution?
  - kbutler 6y ago
    This is an obvious example of both sides of the political spectrum advocating either side of a single issue depending on the context. That's the clearest way to show that both sides argue in bad faith, rather than simply presenting facts or standing on principle. There are lots of other examples, but that's a prominent, current case where both sides argue both sides of the argument. Another prominent case is arguments for or against confirming judicial appointments, but that's been out of the news for an eternity now.

jchw 6y ago

Imo, it’s strictly bad faith to be blamed: on the right, there is a refusal to separate the violent, unprotected speech from the protected opinions. Meanwhile, the left seems to be refusing to accept that coercing people to act a certain way does not actually change what people believe. A list of banned words and opinions will never make the world progressive. Deplatforming people over truly just opinions or mannerisms is a temporary win. Social media isn’t really a moderated community. It has “rules” and you can get “banned,” but Twitter is less “moderated” than a typical comments section. So when people act in bad faith, there’s no recourse unless they explicitly break rules. On say, a typical old Internet forum, it’d probably mostly be considered dramatic to do call-outs, not to mention pointless due to the disconnected nature of identity on the old internet. On Twitter not only is it common but you can make as many bad faith arguments and take as many things as far out of context as you like in attempts at character assassination. You can concern troll, you can use known misleading sources, etc. and even if someone calls you on it, you can just do it again later. As usual though, most people are pretty “selfish.” A lot of people “get away” with being not “progressive“ enough because people like them. What happens is eventually someone has a trivial dispute with them and decides to seize the moment to pull out as much ammo as possible, which is how you end up with 50 page google docs arguing as hard as they can that every mistake someone has ever made is evidence that they are irredeemable. So in self-preservation people become dishonest. And I mean I’ve seen it first-hand. Their beliefs haven’t changed, but they have to say certain things publicly in order to keep their status. And other people who also don’t believe in the things they're saying will express their disappointment if they ever deviate. It’s an amazing circus show. Things have gotten very perverted. With the right, they are of course taking advantage of this in the worst faith way possible by using it as an argument against being progressive in and of itself. It’s not the methods, it’s the ideology. But in the same way a civil rights riot and a doomsday cult riot are not the same thing, there’s always going to be too much nuance for a conclusion that oversimplified. Meanwhile, sites like Twitter simply do not give a fuck. All they care about is brand accounts, ads, and public image. But mostly the first two. So fat chance if they’re going to risk lowering engagement to help fix broken incentives.

SomeCallMeTim 6y ago
> A list of banned words and opinions will never make the world progressive. Deplatforming people over truly just opinions or mannerisms is a temporary win. When people know their opinions are generally considered reprehensible, they hide them. I can agree with that. But if those opinions are successfully hidden or pushed underground, and the next generation is predominantly exposed to positive values, the world does become more progressive. Individuals change only a small amount, you're right, but society does change for the better over time. It's when echo-chambers of intolerance exist that attitudes of intolerance and selfishness can be amplified and push the world in the wrong direction.

ReactiveJelly 6y ago

My take has some nuance so you will probably never see it on the likes of Twitter: I'm against mob violence, I hate the death penalty, but I'm still okay with de-platforming. It has a use. There is a difference between "This person is inciting violence" and "This person is disagreeing with us" and the line has not been blurred yet. I'm glad Trump got banned, because he is an Internet troll who happens to hold office. I'm glad that a few rioters were arrested. I hope they are convicted and serve jail time. I hope they live to realize why they were wrong. If they die it means I will never have them on my side. I don't want anyone to die. Death, unlike de-platforming, cannot be undone if it turns out we are wrong. So please don't lump me in with people calling for guillotines and mob violence.