6 ms·

Maybe I'm being naive but it seems like a larger problem is being ignored here that I feel I should call attention to. This is going to piss people off and som

Maybe I'm being naive but it seems like a larger problem is being ignored here that I feel I should call attention to. This is going to piss people off and some of those people are going to be real, nothing-to-lose extremists. Actions like these though seemingly harmless in the short-term are going to radicalize the exact person/type of people that you do not want to radicalize. Because a lot of high-ranking SV folks (and patrickc) are on here, please, for the sake of stability in the country, do not continue down this path. This may seem innocuous now and purely a matter of principle, but this is a match to gasoline (in a multitude of ways). --- Please do not read this through whatever political lens you occupy, but instead through the lens of civility.

SpicyLemonZest 6y ago
The larger problem is that the United States Congress was, just four days ago, invaded by a violent mob and forced into hiding for hours. People are going to be a lot more radicalized if they think they can get away with that! It would be like refusing to cut business ties with a mafia don because you're afraid of radicalizing his soldiers - maybe there's some short-term benefit, but in the long term all you accomplish that way is legitimizing the violence.
brown9-2 6y ago
The problem is those people are already radicalized, and if you give them what they want out of fear, then they’ve already won
- rglover 6y ago
  I know some of them, and no, but they're getting there.
  - heartbreak 6y ago
    Your original post can be read as an indirect threat (don’t push them to the brink...or else). Why are you saying these things on behalf of a group of people that you’re not a member of?
  - anigbrowl 6y ago
    I know lots of them, and yes, lots of them were there years ago. It's just a first-mover problem because it's relatively easy to infiltrate radical groups and so those which plan violent action tend to informed on or penetrated. This is one reason they look to powerful authority figures for leadership, because peer-to-peer coordination is risky and uncertain.
alisonatwork 6y ago
I agree with this, instinctually. However, I think the political calculus here is that it's better to really piss off a "small" amount of people than allow a potentially larger group to get radicalized. Vice did an article on this recently, when Telegram tried to kick off ISIS: https://www.vice.com/en/article/vb55bd/telegram-deplatforming-isis-has-given-them-something-to-fight-for https://www.vice.com/en/article/vb55bd/telegram-deplatformin... It's interesting to consider whether the (soon to be former) president of the US deserves similar treatment to a terrorist organization responsible for tens of thousands of civilian deaths.
methodin 6y ago
I don't agree with the sentiment. You cannot be responsible for people's opinions/reactions for actions you take that you feel are right. Moreover, by placating the very people you would upset otherwise by punitive actions you send a signal that their actions can go unpunished and further entrench the idea that they are right in their actions which is much more dangerous than a temporary outrage.
npunt 6y ago
On the other hand, avoiding conflict in the short-term will only embolden those who create and thrive on conflict. For these types of people, their next move is usually to escalate. You see this with bullies, abusive relationships, rapists, serial killers, terrorists, etc. They learn what they can get away with, they like the power it gives them, and they try something more. Therefore, we can't make decisions based on the fear of their response, even if we have a personal aversion to conflict. That's falling into the trap of the abused. We have to make decisions based on defending our principles and standing up for what we believe is right. No matter what, some people are going to be pissed off at any sufficiently meaningful decision (or indecision). If the people pissed off are violent types, well, then perhaps that's a sign the right decision was made. I understand that there's a hell of a lot of nuance to this - sometimes you don't poke the sleeping bear. I think Wednesday showed the bear is absolutely not asleep.
- davesque 6y ago
  Couldn't have said it better. Thank you for this.
- nmfisher 6y ago
  Nobody is saying “don’t arrest and prosecute the people who invaded the Capitol”. This is about the campaign finance/social media account/etc of the current sitting POTUS. You don’t need to condone the actions of the Capitol terrorists to take issue with him being banned from every platform having committed no crime (or at least, not having been convicted of any crime). A few hundred people invaded the Capitol, but tens of millions of people voted for Trump. We’re not talking about the former; I think it’s very reasonable to be concerned that this divisiveness might radicalise the latter.
  - npunt 6y ago
    Serious question: Would those people have been at the Capitol without Trump's 'Stop the Steal' rhetoric?
    - nmfisher 6y ago
sdwa 6y ago
I don't agree with this at all and I am tired of seeing "sensible" people here explain how it's important to reach out to fascists and make them feel loved. You're only advocating further normalisation of fascism, and depriving them of the consequences of their actions—consequences that have always been a part of civil society. What's more, that you seem to be more preoccupied with not upsetting these fascists rather than that just a few days ago these very same fascists either attempted a coup or supported a coup does indeed speak of your self-professed naivety (at best). These fascists are a cancer on the body politic and the solution is not to listen to many of the posters here who think that somehow magically the best course of action is simply to do nothing at all, lest we upset the poor lickle fascists.
- TheAdamAndChe 6y ago
  Just categorizing everyone protesting as "fascists" is ignorant. These people think the election was rigged, and they don't trust institutions. They think that our democracy is at risk, and your solution is to push them, deplatform them, and remove all hope of legal political influence? Reacting to this anxiety with force is going to cause a war if it continues.
  - sdwa 6y ago
    OK, most charitably, some of the people protesting unwittingly supported and took part in a fascist coup. Sucks for them I suppose, it's of course an easy mistake to make. People have sat by and watched for 4 years and did nothing whilst Trump worked to erode institutions, culminating in the American people democratically voting in a free and fair election to oust President Trump. The reaction to that was an attempted fascist coup. Clearly doing nothing has failed catastrophically. Perhaps there are more optimal solutions to this attack on democracy, but the posters here clutching their pearls over what is a relatively light response to an attempted coup should spare the rest of us the faux outrage.
  - brown9-2 6y ago
    > remove all hope of legal political influence no one has suggested this and none of the actions of the past few days can be categorized as this Trump’s campaign (for an election that has ended) is not the only campaign in the country
gher-shyu3i 6y ago
> This is going to piss people off and some of those people are going to be real, nothing-to-lose extremists Sometimes certain things need to be dealt with by force, there's no way around it. It seems that that freedom of speech is not the cause of stability, but stability gives rise to (certain degrees) of freedom of speech. It's a slippery slope, but each country has to have a moral basis on which to decide where to draw the line.
- gfodor 6y ago
  The words you just wrote about necessary force are the same ones coming out of the mouths of those you wrote them about. It should be obvious where this road leads unless we have a leader wake us up.
  - anigbrowl 6y ago
    It's perfectly OK to punch someone back after they've punched you first. You're not obliged to stand there and keep reasoning with them while they hit you again.
    - gfodor 6y ago
      Put this in a frame and hang it. It describes war. If that is what you seek, so be it. Everyone argues their war is just. But war is always the same, no matter how just it is. If that is not what you seek, consider how to move towards peace. The worst thing to do is to cause a war when you wanted peace, because you didn't understand what was happening.
      - anigbrowl 6y ago
        Spare me the theatrics. Suggesting that the person getting hit (in this metaphor) is the one seeking war is like an abuser blaming their victim for having made them do the bad thing again.
kayodelycaon 6y ago
The idea is if you remove enough of their ability to communicate with the general population, their influence will be significantly reduced. It would remove the feedback loop that's feeding the fire. It also sends a message that their behavior is unacceptable. That has a very strong influence on culture as a whole. Messages like this are how a lot of civil rights movements have worked.
djtriptych 6y ago
The implied threat of radicalization should be dead to you, and those who try to make this argument. They are already radicalized.
cccc4all 6y ago
I am concerned about all the normal employees of these companies, that are taking these political actions. The higher up people can afford round the clock security. The normal SDE at these companies did not sign up for political activist company. What do they do now?
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
gfodor 6y ago
You are correct, I have been saying this for months/years. The reason this is escalating is for the same reason this always does: unwillingness to believe war is a possibility, then unwillingness to forgive until the suffering has gone on so long it is intolerable.
anigbrowl 6y ago
It really won't. It'll be cited as a the grievance that drove them over the line in manifestos or court testimony, but generally people are radicalized by themselves or peers and then cast around for an exterior excuse afterwards. The grievances vary with circumstances, the target or out-group disliked by the extremist person stays the same.
paxys 6y ago
Appeasement has never, ever worked throughout history.

SpicyLemonZest 6y ago

The larger problem is that the United States Congress was, just four days ago, invaded by a violent mob and forced into hiding for hours. People are going to be a lot more radicalized if they think they can get away with that! It would be like refusing to cut business ties with a mafia don because you're afraid of radicalizing his soldiers - maybe there's some short-term benefit, but in the long term all you accomplish that way is legitimizing the violence.

brown9-2 6y ago

The problem is those people are already radicalized, and if you give them what they want out of fear, then they’ve already won

rglover 6y ago
I know some of them, and no, but they're getting there.
- heartbreak 6y ago
  Your original post can be read as an indirect threat (don’t push them to the brink...or else). Why are you saying these things on behalf of a group of people that you’re not a member of?
- anigbrowl 6y ago
  I know lots of them, and yes, lots of them were there years ago. It's just a first-mover problem because it's relatively easy to infiltrate radical groups and so those which plan violent action tend to informed on or penetrated. This is one reason they look to powerful authority figures for leadership, because peer-to-peer coordination is risky and uncertain.

alisonatwork 6y ago

I agree with this, instinctually. However, I think the political calculus here is that it's better to really piss off a "small" amount of people than allow a potentially larger group to get radicalized. Vice did an article on this recently, when Telegram tried to kick off ISIS: https://www.vice.com/en/article/vb55bd/telegram-deplatforming-isis-has-given-them-something-to-fight-for https://www.vice.com/en/article/vb55bd/telegram-deplatformin... It's interesting to consider whether the (soon to be former) president of the US deserves similar treatment to a terrorist organization responsible for tens of thousands of civilian deaths.

methodin 6y ago

I don't agree with the sentiment. You cannot be responsible for people's opinions/reactions for actions you take that you feel are right. Moreover, by placating the very people you would upset otherwise by punitive actions you send a signal that their actions can go unpunished and further entrench the idea that they are right in their actions which is much more dangerous than a temporary outrage.

npunt 6y ago

On the other hand, avoiding conflict in the short-term will only embolden those who create and thrive on conflict. For these types of people, their next move is usually to escalate. You see this with bullies, abusive relationships, rapists, serial killers, terrorists, etc. They learn what they can get away with, they like the power it gives them, and they try something more. Therefore, we can't make decisions based on the fear of their response, even if we have a personal aversion to conflict. That's falling into the trap of the abused. We have to make decisions based on defending our principles and standing up for what we believe is right. No matter what, some people are going to be pissed off at any sufficiently meaningful decision (or indecision). If the people pissed off are violent types, well, then perhaps that's a sign the right decision was made. I understand that there's a hell of a lot of nuance to this - sometimes you don't poke the sleeping bear. I think Wednesday showed the bear is absolutely not asleep.

davesque 6y ago
Couldn't have said it better. Thank you for this.
nmfisher 6y ago
Nobody is saying “don’t arrest and prosecute the people who invaded the Capitol”. This is about the campaign finance/social media account/etc of the current sitting POTUS. You don’t need to condone the actions of the Capitol terrorists to take issue with him being banned from every platform having committed no crime (or at least, not having been convicted of any crime). A few hundred people invaded the Capitol, but tens of millions of people voted for Trump. We’re not talking about the former; I think it’s very reasonable to be concerned that this divisiveness might radicalise the latter.
- npunt 6y ago
  Serious question: Would those people have been at the Capitol without Trump's 'Stop the Steal' rhetoric?
  - nmfisher 6y ago

sdwa 6y ago

I don't agree with this at all and I am tired of seeing "sensible" people here explain how it's important to reach out to fascists and make them feel loved. You're only advocating further normalisation of fascism, and depriving them of the consequences of their actions—consequences that have always been a part of civil society. What's more, that you seem to be more preoccupied with not upsetting these fascists rather than that just a few days ago these very same fascists either attempted a coup or supported a coup does indeed speak of your self-professed naivety (at best). These fascists are a cancer on the body politic and the solution is not to listen to many of the posters here who think that somehow magically the best course of action is simply to do nothing at all, lest we upset the poor lickle fascists.

TheAdamAndChe 6y ago
Just categorizing everyone protesting as "fascists" is ignorant. These people think the election was rigged, and they don't trust institutions. They think that our democracy is at risk, and your solution is to push them, deplatform them, and remove all hope of legal political influence? Reacting to this anxiety with force is going to cause a war if it continues.
- sdwa 6y ago
  OK, most charitably, some of the people protesting unwittingly supported and took part in a fascist coup. Sucks for them I suppose, it's of course an easy mistake to make. People have sat by and watched for 4 years and did nothing whilst Trump worked to erode institutions, culminating in the American people democratically voting in a free and fair election to oust President Trump. The reaction to that was an attempted fascist coup. Clearly doing nothing has failed catastrophically. Perhaps there are more optimal solutions to this attack on democracy, but the posters here clutching their pearls over what is a relatively light response to an attempted coup should spare the rest of us the faux outrage.
- brown9-2 6y ago
  > remove all hope of legal political influence no one has suggested this and none of the actions of the past few days can be categorized as this Trump’s campaign (for an election that has ended) is not the only campaign in the country

gher-shyu3i 6y ago

> This is going to piss people off and some of those people are going to be real, nothing-to-lose extremists Sometimes certain things need to be dealt with by force, there's no way around it. It seems that that freedom of speech is not the cause of stability, but stability gives rise to (certain degrees) of freedom of speech. It's a slippery slope, but each country has to have a moral basis on which to decide where to draw the line.

gfodor 6y ago
The words you just wrote about necessary force are the same ones coming out of the mouths of those you wrote them about. It should be obvious where this road leads unless we have a leader wake us up.
- anigbrowl 6y ago
  It's perfectly OK to punch someone back after they've punched you first. You're not obliged to stand there and keep reasoning with them while they hit you again.
  - gfodor 6y ago
    Put this in a frame and hang it. It describes war. If that is what you seek, so be it. Everyone argues their war is just. But war is always the same, no matter how just it is. If that is not what you seek, consider how to move towards peace. The worst thing to do is to cause a war when you wanted peace, because you didn't understand what was happening.
    - anigbrowl 6y ago
      Spare me the theatrics. Suggesting that the person getting hit (in this metaphor) is the one seeking war is like an abuser blaming their victim for having made them do the bad thing again.

kayodelycaon 6y ago

The idea is if you remove enough of their ability to communicate with the general population, their influence will be significantly reduced. It would remove the feedback loop that's feeding the fire. It also sends a message that their behavior is unacceptable. That has a very strong influence on culture as a whole. Messages like this are how a lot of civil rights movements have worked.

djtriptych 6y ago

The implied threat of radicalization should be dead to you, and those who try to make this argument. They are already radicalized.

cccc4all 6y ago

I am concerned about all the normal employees of these companies, that are taking these political actions. The higher up people can afford round the clock security. The normal SDE at these companies did not sign up for political activist company. What do they do now?

deleted 6y ago

[deleted]

gfodor 6y ago

You are correct, I have been saying this for months/years. The reason this is escalating is for the same reason this always does: unwillingness to believe war is a possibility, then unwillingness to forgive until the suffering has gone on so long it is intolerable.

anigbrowl 6y ago

It really won't. It'll be cited as a the grievance that drove them over the line in manifestos or court testimony, but generally people are radicalized by themselves or peers and then cast around for an exterior excuse afterwards. The grievances vary with circumstances, the target or out-group disliked by the extremist person stays the same.

paxys 6y ago

Appeasement has never, ever worked throughout history.