3 ms·

People seem not to realize that every action spawns a reaction by the other side, especially extreme ones. All this censoring will almost undoubtably cause some

by Dig1t 6y ago

People seem not to realize that every action spawns a reaction by the other side, especially extreme ones. All this censoring will almost undoubtably cause some people on the other side to double down, unfortunately. :/

geofft 6y ago
Inaction also spawns a reaction by the other side, as most infamously Chamberlain learned. I don't really buy a policy proposal of "ignore it and it will go away" absent some more concrete reason to believe it. And, in fact, the policy we've been taking re QAnon over the last few years was precisely "ignore it and it will go away," and it didn't work out so well.
- kibwen 6y ago
  It goes to show the naivete of the "sunlight is the best disinfectant" crowd. Sure, sunlight is the best disinfectant... and oxygen is the best accelerant.
chalst 6y ago
What kind of a follow-up to insurrection constitutes doubling down? Launching a nuclear missile?
- spoonjim 6y ago
  You can’t think of a terrorist attack with more than four deaths?
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
seppin 6y ago
> All this censoring will almost undoubtably cause some people on the other side to double down, unfortunately. QAnon needs deprograming and therapy. Anything short of that will "cause them to double down".
willis936 6y ago
Retaliating against the behavior of an unrelated authoritarian regime is irrational.
mikestew 6y ago
People seem not to realize that every action spawns a reaction by the other side A change in wind direction would cause a reaction by this "other side". I would argue that the most recent actions are not those of completely mentally well folks who are going to respond well to rational discourse. And I don't think we should take marching orders from the mental delusions of insurrectionists. "I'm not going to do the right thing because the nutters on 'the other side' might take it wrong." Umm, no, I don't think so. We can just arrest the nutters later.
amalcon 6y ago
People also don't seem to realize that the action does not need to be real to cause a reaction by the other side. I'd provide an example, but to do so would just inject my own biases. I'm sure anyone reading this can think of at least 5-6 "reactions" by the other side which had no precipitating action -- regardless of which side they're on. It starts to seem a little silly to worry about the reaction on the other side, when that reaction is likely to happen anyway. There are good, principled reasons to avoid censorship. Concern about what irrational actors will do in response is not one of them.
- mental1896 6y ago
  I actually can't think of any. Could you give just 1 example?
  - amalcon 6y ago
    I'm trying to avoid my own bias here, so I'm going to come up with two examples that should be familiar to US audiences, one from each side. Take your pick: - Impeaching Trump and attempting to remove him from office after the Ukraine call (which Trump supporters believe to be perfectly normal presidential behavior, and Trump opponents believe was naked corruption tantamount to solicitation of a bribe) - The recent insurrection in the American capitol to prevent the certification of Biden as the next President (which Trump opponents believe to be the result of a legitimate process, and Trump supporters believe to be an entirely fabricated victory) I happen think the former was a fully warranted reaction to a real (if ineffective) attempt to undermine American democracy, and the latter a reckless and contemptible reaction to nothing. It's irrelevant to my point, though: if you can look at either of those and say there's nothing there, then the other side is completely capable of reacting to nothing.
  - im3w1l 6y ago
    Censorship is often used by the strong to advance their personal interests. For instance two people "on the same side" have a lovers quarrel. One of them deplatforms the other. Another example: some official takes a bribe, and when the press realizes they are censored. Third: Some company has a competitor, and gets them censored for purely monetary reasons. Another aspect where censorship creates issues is that every idea starts as fringe before growing mainstream. If they are censored it creates ideological stagnation. A third is that true but "dangeroues" ideas, can have important implications. And those implications may be ideas beneficial to everyone. But since the dangerous idea is censored, no one will figure the implications out, and the benefits are not realized. For instance, let's say there was election fraud, but the censors "bet on the wrong horse" (nothing is certain, at some point you have to say it's >95% certain so we will treat it as true) and censor such claims. Then they may miss opportunities to make elections fairer in the future.

by Dig1t 6y ago

geofft 6y ago

Inaction also spawns a reaction by the other side, as most infamously Chamberlain learned. I don't really buy a policy proposal of "ignore it and it will go away" absent some more concrete reason to believe it. And, in fact, the policy we've been taking re QAnon over the last few years was precisely "ignore it and it will go away," and it didn't work out so well.

kibwen 6y ago
It goes to show the naivete of the "sunlight is the best disinfectant" crowd. Sure, sunlight is the best disinfectant... and oxygen is the best accelerant.

chalst 6y ago

What kind of a follow-up to insurrection constitutes doubling down? Launching a nuclear missile?

spoonjim 6y ago
You can’t think of a terrorist attack with more than four deaths?
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]

seppin 6y ago

> All this censoring will almost undoubtably cause some people on the other side to double down, unfortunately. QAnon needs deprograming and therapy. Anything short of that will "cause them to double down".

willis936 6y ago

Retaliating against the behavior of an unrelated authoritarian regime is irrational.

mikestew 6y ago

People seem not to realize that every action spawns a reaction by the other side A change in wind direction would cause a reaction by this "other side". I would argue that the most recent actions are not those of completely mentally well folks who are going to respond well to rational discourse. And I don't think we should take marching orders from the mental delusions of insurrectionists. "I'm not going to do the right thing because the nutters on 'the other side' might take it wrong." Umm, no, I don't think so. We can just arrest the nutters later.

amalcon 6y ago

People also don't seem to realize that the action does not need to be real to cause a reaction by the other side. I'd provide an example, but to do so would just inject my own biases. I'm sure anyone reading this can think of at least 5-6 "reactions" by the other side which had no precipitating action -- regardless of which side they're on. It starts to seem a little silly to worry about the reaction on the other side, when that reaction is likely to happen anyway. There are good, principled reasons to avoid censorship. Concern about what irrational actors will do in response is not one of them.

mental1896 6y ago
I actually can't think of any. Could you give just 1 example?
- amalcon 6y ago
  I'm trying to avoid my own bias here, so I'm going to come up with two examples that should be familiar to US audiences, one from each side. Take your pick: - Impeaching Trump and attempting to remove him from office after the Ukraine call (which Trump supporters believe to be perfectly normal presidential behavior, and Trump opponents believe was naked corruption tantamount to solicitation of a bribe) - The recent insurrection in the American capitol to prevent the certification of Biden as the next President (which Trump opponents believe to be the result of a legitimate process, and Trump supporters believe to be an entirely fabricated victory) I happen think the former was a fully warranted reaction to a real (if ineffective) attempt to undermine American democracy, and the latter a reckless and contemptible reaction to nothing. It's irrelevant to my point, though: if you can look at either of those and say there's nothing there, then the other side is completely capable of reacting to nothing.
- im3w1l 6y ago
  Censorship is often used by the strong to advance their personal interests. For instance two people "on the same side" have a lovers quarrel. One of them deplatforms the other. Another example: some official takes a bribe, and when the press realizes they are censored. Third: Some company has a competitor, and gets them censored for purely monetary reasons. Another aspect where censorship creates issues is that every idea starts as fringe before growing mainstream. If they are censored it creates ideological stagnation. A third is that true but "dangeroues" ideas, can have important implications. And those implications may be ideas beneficial to everyone. But since the dangerous idea is censored, no one will figure the implications out, and the benefits are not realized. For instance, let's say there was election fraud, but the censors "bet on the wrong horse" (nothing is certain, at some point you have to say it's >95% certain so we will treat it as true) and censor such claims. Then they may miss opportunities to make elections fairer in the future.