4 ms·
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,
by 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.
- jchw 6y agoThe problem to me is that it quickly becomes a game of what seems most progressive optically rather than what is right on a fundamental level. Like, the obvious bits of free speech are not very interesting; it’s the edges of free speech that are what really matter, and these are the things that need the most nuance. Nuance is not what you expect in a social media platform (especially not one aimed at explicitly short form communication only.)
- chordalkeyboard 6y ago> 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. Preference falsification. Its getting worse. and people who falsify preferences still act like radicals. They haven't internalized the values so they imperfectly carry them out.
- ReactiveJelly 6y ago"the left seems to be refusing to accept that coercing people to act a certain way does not actually change what people believe." I know coercion is not enough, but it's the only thing that can be pushed by the people with power to push anything. As soon as I find out what _will_ change beliefs, I'd like to start doing it. Assuming that, as an individual, I _can_ do anything at all. But breaking up the radicalization pipelines is better than nothing.