9 ms·

Data, evidence? The threat is in giving the fascist terrorist 1% a microphone not that the other 99% happen to be listening. Parler was lax in policing that 1

Data, evidence? The threat is in giving the fascist terrorist 1% a microphone not that the other 99% happen to be listening. Parler was lax in policing that 1%.

whimsicalism 6y ago
And thus the private messages/videos of all should be leaked by vigilantes? I am equally concerned about what happened about the Capitol, but the actions taken by tech in response are unacceptable to me.
- ipsocannibal 6y ago
  You just jumped to a conclusion. In another comment in this article I specifically said only messages that are related to the commission of a crime should be released and everything else should be deleted.
brigandish 6y ago
> The threat is in giving the fascist terrorist 1% a microphone The problem with fascist terrorists is not their rhetoric, it's their violence. Allow them to speak their mind and you lower their need for violent action and everyone else gets to show that their ideas are horribly flawed. It's amusing to think that people seriously believe there are huge swathes of people just ripe to become neo-nazis because someone gave a rousing speech or wrote some tweets - how do you manage not to succumb to these rhetorical titans?
- marcinzm 6y ago
  >It's amusing to think that people seriously believe there are huge swathes of people just ripe to become neo-nazis because someone gave a rousing speech or wrote some tweets - how do you manage not to succumb to these rhetorical titans? Given that exactly this happened 90 years ago and caused the deaths of tens of millions, people are needless to say cautious.
  - brigandish 6y ago
    I'm going to side with the interpretations of history that are a tad more complex than "he gave a rousing speech, hence, genocide", and there are plenty of them.
    - l9k 6y ago
      Yet you seem to side with the less complex interpretation of current event being "he gave a rousing speech"
      - brigandish 6y ago
        That's my opponent's position, not mine. When creating an opposing argument it's almost certain you will have to state their argument (in whole or in part) to produce a refutation.
  - cbozeman 6y ago
    You can't have Hitler without the Treaty of Versailles. He was just a catalyst to an incredibly punitive and emasculating treaty that scarred the psychology of the German people. If it hadn't been Hitler, it would have eventually been someone else.
    - macintux 6y ago
      War, maybe. Genocide of the Jews? Seems less likely as an inevitability.
- mrzimmerman 6y ago
  You're purposefully being reductionist about this. People having their brains hit with racist or violent rhetoric over a long period of time will be changed by that. They human brain adapts to it's environment, expecting certain inputs and if it's receiving /pol light on Twitter then it starts to expect it. On top of that, it's only a matter of time before they're linked to one of the many .win site that sprang up after Twitter purged the_donald and the Qanon people. And again, people have been moved to violence and facism in human history, that's not difficult to find.
  - brigandish 6y ago
    > You're purposefully being reductionist about this. I'm really not, and I'd prefer if you started off responding to me by not (mis)characterising my intentions. I'm 100% sincere in my support of free speech and stand 100% behind my comment. > People having their brains hit with racist or violent rhetoric over a long period of time will be changed by that Yes, they will, which is why it's good to allow every voice and every kind of viewpoint a chance to be expressed and hence challenged. Unless you think that echo chambers are a good thing? > people have been moved to violence and facism in human history, that's not difficult to find Did they occur in places with high amounts of censorship or free speech? The Holocaust wasn't caused simply by one of Hitler's speeches, for example, it was also (among other things) primed by the rampant anti-semitic prejudice that came from the pulpit every Sunday for hundreds of years - which was unchallengable due to blasphemy laws. Another "win" for the repression of speech someone in power doesn't like, eh?
    - joshuamorton 6y ago
      Parler was an echo chamber. > which was unchallengable due to blasphemy laws There's basically no support for this claim in any literature I can find. Care to cite a historian?
      - brigandish 6y ago
        Parler was not an echo chamber by design. > There's basically no support for this claim in any literature I can find. Care to cite a historian? Tell me the literature you looked in first, because I want to know which books can miss such basic facts, and hence what I should avoid. The history of Europe is soaked in blood provoked by differences over what can be said by religious people, to religious people, and of them and their views. Entire wars have been fought over it - are you going to tell me there are historians that are credible who'll claim Europe was a land of toleration? Locke wrote his letter of toleration specifically because of the widespread intolerance and bloodshed. If you use the word heresy instead of blasphemy and your search may prove more fruitful. It was effect in Europe from the Edict of Thessalonica, which brought the first execution, and in some countries hasn't been repealed from law. If you look up the last people executed under these laws you may even find what they said to deserve execution.
- amanaplanacanal 6y ago
  > Allow them to speak their mind and you lower their need for violent action That may be true, or that may not be true. Has there been any research on this?
  - loveistheanswer 6y ago
    History is replete with examples
- ipsocannibal 6y ago
  I think this is relevent a https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_tolerance https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_tolerance
  - brigandish 6y ago
    This is often brought up, mistakenly, as support for restricting speech based on speech alone when it says no such thing. Popper draws a clear distinction between those who will have intolerant views but do not engage in violence, and those who do engage in violence. It is only the latter, in Popper's view, that must be restricted.
sanedigital 6y ago
I'm not the one making the positive claim: if people are so certain there were calls for mass executions on Parler, they should demonstrate it.

Data, evidence? The threat is in giving the fascist terrorist 1% a microphone not that the other 99% happen to be listening. Parler was lax in policing that 1%.

whimsicalism 6y ago

And thus the private messages/videos of all should be leaked by vigilantes? I am equally concerned about what happened about the Capitol, but the actions taken by tech in response are unacceptable to me.

ipsocannibal 6y ago
You just jumped to a conclusion. In another comment in this article I specifically said only messages that are related to the commission of a crime should be released and everything else should be deleted.

brigandish 6y ago

> The threat is in giving the fascist terrorist 1% a microphone The problem with fascist terrorists is not their rhetoric, it's their violence. Allow them to speak their mind and you lower their need for violent action and everyone else gets to show that their ideas are horribly flawed. It's amusing to think that people seriously believe there are huge swathes of people just ripe to become neo-nazis because someone gave a rousing speech or wrote some tweets - how do you manage not to succumb to these rhetorical titans?

marcinzm 6y ago
>It's amusing to think that people seriously believe there are huge swathes of people just ripe to become neo-nazis because someone gave a rousing speech or wrote some tweets - how do you manage not to succumb to these rhetorical titans? Given that exactly this happened 90 years ago and caused the deaths of tens of millions, people are needless to say cautious.
- brigandish 6y ago
  I'm going to side with the interpretations of history that are a tad more complex than "he gave a rousing speech, hence, genocide", and there are plenty of them.
  - l9k 6y ago
    Yet you seem to side with the less complex interpretation of current event being "he gave a rousing speech"
    - brigandish 6y ago
      That's my opponent's position, not mine. When creating an opposing argument it's almost certain you will have to state their argument (in whole or in part) to produce a refutation.
- cbozeman 6y ago
  You can't have Hitler without the Treaty of Versailles. He was just a catalyst to an incredibly punitive and emasculating treaty that scarred the psychology of the German people. If it hadn't been Hitler, it would have eventually been someone else.
  - macintux 6y ago
    War, maybe. Genocide of the Jews? Seems less likely as an inevitability.
mrzimmerman 6y ago
You're purposefully being reductionist about this. People having their brains hit with racist or violent rhetoric over a long period of time will be changed by that. They human brain adapts to it's environment, expecting certain inputs and if it's receiving /pol light on Twitter then it starts to expect it. On top of that, it's only a matter of time before they're linked to one of the many .win site that sprang up after Twitter purged the_donald and the Qanon people. And again, people have been moved to violence and facism in human history, that's not difficult to find.
- brigandish 6y ago
  > You're purposefully being reductionist about this. I'm really not, and I'd prefer if you started off responding to me by not (mis)characterising my intentions. I'm 100% sincere in my support of free speech and stand 100% behind my comment. > People having their brains hit with racist or violent rhetoric over a long period of time will be changed by that Yes, they will, which is why it's good to allow every voice and every kind of viewpoint a chance to be expressed and hence challenged. Unless you think that echo chambers are a good thing? > people have been moved to violence and facism in human history, that's not difficult to find Did they occur in places with high amounts of censorship or free speech? The Holocaust wasn't caused simply by one of Hitler's speeches, for example, it was also (among other things) primed by the rampant anti-semitic prejudice that came from the pulpit every Sunday for hundreds of years - which was unchallengable due to blasphemy laws. Another "win" for the repression of speech someone in power doesn't like, eh?
  - joshuamorton 6y ago
    Parler was an echo chamber. > which was unchallengable due to blasphemy laws There's basically no support for this claim in any literature I can find. Care to cite a historian?
    - brigandish 6y ago
      Parler was not an echo chamber by design. > There's basically no support for this claim in any literature I can find. Care to cite a historian? Tell me the literature you looked in first, because I want to know which books can miss such basic facts, and hence what I should avoid. The history of Europe is soaked in blood provoked by differences over what can be said by religious people, to religious people, and of them and their views. Entire wars have been fought over it - are you going to tell me there are historians that are credible who'll claim Europe was a land of toleration? Locke wrote his letter of toleration specifically because of the widespread intolerance and bloodshed. If you use the word heresy instead of blasphemy and your search may prove more fruitful. It was effect in Europe from the Edict of Thessalonica, which brought the first execution, and in some countries hasn't been repealed from law. If you look up the last people executed under these laws you may even find what they said to deserve execution.
amanaplanacanal 6y ago
> Allow them to speak their mind and you lower their need for violent action That may be true, or that may not be true. Has there been any research on this?
- loveistheanswer 6y ago
  History is replete with examples
ipsocannibal 6y ago
I think this is relevent a https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_tolerance https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_tolerance
- brigandish 6y ago
  This is often brought up, mistakenly, as support for restricting speech based on speech alone when it says no such thing. Popper draws a clear distinction between those who will have intolerant views but do not engage in violence, and those who do engage in violence. It is only the latter, in Popper's view, that must be restricted.

sanedigital 6y ago

I'm not the one making the positive claim: if people are so certain there were calls for mass executions on Parler, they should demonstrate it.