4 ms·

+1. I must admit I find it a bit rich that people are raising free speech issues around this situation. I find myself wondering where these people were in 2014

+1. I must admit I find it a bit rich that people are raising free speech issues around this situation. I find myself wondering where these people were in 2014 when all the major social media platforms systematically removed ISIS accounts and content from their systems. I don't recall anyone lamenting that move and the chilling effects it had on free speech. In fact, iirc the response was quite the opposite.

aww_dang 6y ago
Is it possible to use a more extreme generalization than ISIS? On one hand you had ISIS posting beheading videos. On the other you had grandmas posting selfies in the rotunda. Yeah, there are some nutters out there. But to claim that everyone caught up in the tech purges is somehow equivalent to ISIS seems a bit rich from my perspective. Even if you accept that some of these people are genuine domestic terrorists, reasonable people should be able to distinguish between rogue elements and ISIS, an organized terror state. This is a bit like the claim that everyone who entered the Capitol Building was a terrorist. These are wide generalizations that only serve to confirm partisan biases. For me the use of these fallacious comparisons is illustrative of the problem at hand, toxic divisiveness.
- mr_toad 6y ago
  It’s called reductio ad absurdum. Absolute free speech would have to include ISIS, a group that would (and has) killed people for what they say. If you admit that absolute free speech leads to illogical and impractical consequences, then the only remaining question is where to draw the line. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reductio_ad_absurdum https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reductio_ad_absurdum
  - aww_dang 6y ago
    I'll agree that the comparison to ISIS is absurd.
    - cthalupa 6y ago
      You seem to be missing the point. Reductio ad absurdum is a rhetorical tool, not a logical fallacy. It's goal is to show that your argument is absurd, because the absurd statement follows from the argument you are making.
      - aww_dang 6y ago
        I'm well aware of what reductio ad absurdism is. I don't agree that it is relevant to the point I am making in regards to the parent comment. If anything, I'm rejecting the absolutism you seem to perceive by distinguishing between what I see as two very different things. >I find myself wondering where these people were in 2014 when all the major social media platforms systematically removed ISIS accounts... Perhaps these people didn't object for the reasons I described above. ISIS is nothing like the Capitol Hill demonstrators.
- JumpCrisscross 6y ago
  > Is it possible to use a more extreme generalization than ISIS? Sitting in New York, nutters who came within yards of hanging the Vice President, Speaker of the House and potentially several Senators are a far more clear and present danger than mullahs in the Middle East.
  - aww_dang 6y ago
    Bah, there's so much partisan hyperbole that I have a hard time believing that Pence or Pelosi were in danger of being lynched. This fits perfectly within the narrative I've described above. Take the most extreme rhetoric and generalize it to mean an entire population of people you disagree with. Furthermore, if we accept the narrative of the WoT and that there was a legitimate threat to politicians, there's still a wide swath of difference between the two. ISIS is a real threat endangering, killing, maiming and torturing an entire region. They carried out indiscriminate attacks on civilians across the world. A few nutters threatening to lynch some politicians isn't that. Conflating the two ideas is an example of how toxic rhetoric has become. Yeah, you can turn on MSNBC, CNN or even the BBC right now for validation of those narratives. You could also turn to those same media outlets for justification for the war in Iraq or crackdowns on civil liberties during that same period. The new war on domestic terrorism (read dissent from establishment politics) is similarly worth a critical look. Especially if grandmas with thermoses are to be lumped in with dangerous extremists.
    - amanaplanacanal 6y ago
      Since law enforcement is investigating, the judicial system should be able to determine whether people were intending to actually kidnap and kill members of Congress and the Vice President. If you are willing to wait for verdicts, you will find out. Right now it certainly appears that way.
      - aww_dang 6y ago
        I think we can agree on that. Successfully prosecuting rogue actors for plotting to use violence against politicians isn't the same as establishing equivalence with ISIS. Nor does it allow one to generalize about the content of the entire group of protesters. There were some protesters who expelled rogue actors while accusing them of being "antifa agitators". It wouldn't be fair to cherry pick the worst actions of the group and generalize. The comparison to ISIS is an extra leap that I hope needs no further elaboration.
- pelliphant 6y ago
  Why are you defending those trumpists that stormed the capitol? Sure, we could argue that "terrorist" is the wrong word to use here, but if we used another word, such as "criminals", I would guess that you would still make pretty much the same argument. And talking about "toxic divisiveness" while defending people trying to overthrow an election? Are you even listening to yourself?
  - aww_dang 6y ago
    Disagreeing with the excesses of partisan hyperbole is not the same as defending Trump, his policies or the actions of his supporters. I hope you can appreciate the distinction. I notice many comments will start with, "Although I dislike Trump..." The fact that comments need to begin with such a disclaimer is illustrative of the atmosphere we find ourselves in. A comment should stand on its own. Disclaimers shouldn't be necessary.
    - pelliphant 6y ago
      I appreciate your answer, but I still consider it "defending". Yes, the atmosphere we find ourselves in is horrible. But I would argue that the "post-truth" strategy used by trump & friends is the main reason for this. When it is so common to be intelectually dishonest, those disclaimers are needed, and with how easy it is to misunderstand people on the internet, I think that those disclaimers are something positive, people really should add "/s" when being sarcastic as an example. How would you suggest one should handle dishonest liars on the internet? Personally I think that one should call them out on their lies, but everytime that is done, someone, (in this case, you), come along and call it "partisan hyperbole"...
      - aww_dang 6y ago
        By example, you'll note that I haven't called the comparison to ISIS dishonest. I could go in that direction, but instead I'd call it inaccurate. I've no way of reading the mind of the poster, so instead of burdening them with my presumptions of dishonesty, I try (and sometimes fail) to engage with good faith. From this point it isn't hard to understand how high emotions seem to be running. It isn't uncommon for otherwise rational people to project irrational ideas onto a discussion. This is especially common when emotions are running high. The tribal instinct seems to be one of our most base emotions. The distinction is that I don't presume malice. Instead, as trite as it may sound, I try to work from a place of compassion. Simply blaming the other side (RE: Trump & Friends) appears to be part of the problem here. The anti-Trump partisans appear just as emotionally irrational in my view. Perhaps I am privileged in that I don't identify with either side, or approve of their policies. I will say that it is hard not to have sympathy when I see someone irrationally attacked. The mob mentality is palatable. I think it was George Carlin who made a famous observation about the intelligence of the 'average' person, then concluded that half of the people are somewhere below that.
- amanaplanacanal 6y ago
  But don’t the same free speech issues apply to both? From a free speech perspective, how are they different?

aww_dang 6y ago

Is it possible to use a more extreme generalization than ISIS? On one hand you had ISIS posting beheading videos. On the other you had grandmas posting selfies in the rotunda. Yeah, there are some nutters out there. But to claim that everyone caught up in the tech purges is somehow equivalent to ISIS seems a bit rich from my perspective. Even if you accept that some of these people are genuine domestic terrorists, reasonable people should be able to distinguish between rogue elements and ISIS, an organized terror state. This is a bit like the claim that everyone who entered the Capitol Building was a terrorist. These are wide generalizations that only serve to confirm partisan biases. For me the use of these fallacious comparisons is illustrative of the problem at hand, toxic divisiveness.

mr_toad 6y ago
It’s called reductio ad absurdum. Absolute free speech would have to include ISIS, a group that would (and has) killed people for what they say. If you admit that absolute free speech leads to illogical and impractical consequences, then the only remaining question is where to draw the line. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reductio_ad_absurdum https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reductio_ad_absurdum
- aww_dang 6y ago
  I'll agree that the comparison to ISIS is absurd.
  - cthalupa 6y ago
    You seem to be missing the point. Reductio ad absurdum is a rhetorical tool, not a logical fallacy. It's goal is to show that your argument is absurd, because the absurd statement follows from the argument you are making.
    - aww_dang 6y ago
      I'm well aware of what reductio ad absurdism is. I don't agree that it is relevant to the point I am making in regards to the parent comment. If anything, I'm rejecting the absolutism you seem to perceive by distinguishing between what I see as two very different things. >I find myself wondering where these people were in 2014 when all the major social media platforms systematically removed ISIS accounts... Perhaps these people didn't object for the reasons I described above. ISIS is nothing like the Capitol Hill demonstrators.
JumpCrisscross 6y ago
> Is it possible to use a more extreme generalization than ISIS? Sitting in New York, nutters who came within yards of hanging the Vice President, Speaker of the House and potentially several Senators are a far more clear and present danger than mullahs in the Middle East.
- aww_dang 6y ago
  Bah, there's so much partisan hyperbole that I have a hard time believing that Pence or Pelosi were in danger of being lynched. This fits perfectly within the narrative I've described above. Take the most extreme rhetoric and generalize it to mean an entire population of people you disagree with. Furthermore, if we accept the narrative of the WoT and that there was a legitimate threat to politicians, there's still a wide swath of difference between the two. ISIS is a real threat endangering, killing, maiming and torturing an entire region. They carried out indiscriminate attacks on civilians across the world. A few nutters threatening to lynch some politicians isn't that. Conflating the two ideas is an example of how toxic rhetoric has become. Yeah, you can turn on MSNBC, CNN or even the BBC right now for validation of those narratives. You could also turn to those same media outlets for justification for the war in Iraq or crackdowns on civil liberties during that same period. The new war on domestic terrorism (read dissent from establishment politics) is similarly worth a critical look. Especially if grandmas with thermoses are to be lumped in with dangerous extremists.
  - amanaplanacanal 6y ago
    Since law enforcement is investigating, the judicial system should be able to determine whether people were intending to actually kidnap and kill members of Congress and the Vice President. If you are willing to wait for verdicts, you will find out. Right now it certainly appears that way.
    - aww_dang 6y ago
      I think we can agree on that. Successfully prosecuting rogue actors for plotting to use violence against politicians isn't the same as establishing equivalence with ISIS. Nor does it allow one to generalize about the content of the entire group of protesters. There were some protesters who expelled rogue actors while accusing them of being "antifa agitators". It wouldn't be fair to cherry pick the worst actions of the group and generalize. The comparison to ISIS is an extra leap that I hope needs no further elaboration.
pelliphant 6y ago
Why are you defending those trumpists that stormed the capitol? Sure, we could argue that "terrorist" is the wrong word to use here, but if we used another word, such as "criminals", I would guess that you would still make pretty much the same argument. And talking about "toxic divisiveness" while defending people trying to overthrow an election? Are you even listening to yourself?
- aww_dang 6y ago
  Disagreeing with the excesses of partisan hyperbole is not the same as defending Trump, his policies or the actions of his supporters. I hope you can appreciate the distinction. I notice many comments will start with, "Although I dislike Trump..." The fact that comments need to begin with such a disclaimer is illustrative of the atmosphere we find ourselves in. A comment should stand on its own. Disclaimers shouldn't be necessary.
  - pelliphant 6y ago
    I appreciate your answer, but I still consider it "defending". Yes, the atmosphere we find ourselves in is horrible. But I would argue that the "post-truth" strategy used by trump & friends is the main reason for this. When it is so common to be intelectually dishonest, those disclaimers are needed, and with how easy it is to misunderstand people on the internet, I think that those disclaimers are something positive, people really should add "/s" when being sarcastic as an example. How would you suggest one should handle dishonest liars on the internet? Personally I think that one should call them out on their lies, but everytime that is done, someone, (in this case, you), come along and call it "partisan hyperbole"...
    - aww_dang 6y ago
      By example, you'll note that I haven't called the comparison to ISIS dishonest. I could go in that direction, but instead I'd call it inaccurate. I've no way of reading the mind of the poster, so instead of burdening them with my presumptions of dishonesty, I try (and sometimes fail) to engage with good faith. From this point it isn't hard to understand how high emotions seem to be running. It isn't uncommon for otherwise rational people to project irrational ideas onto a discussion. This is especially common when emotions are running high. The tribal instinct seems to be one of our most base emotions. The distinction is that I don't presume malice. Instead, as trite as it may sound, I try to work from a place of compassion. Simply blaming the other side (RE: Trump & Friends) appears to be part of the problem here. The anti-Trump partisans appear just as emotionally irrational in my view. Perhaps I am privileged in that I don't identify with either side, or approve of their policies. I will say that it is hard not to have sympathy when I see someone irrationally attacked. The mob mentality is palatable. I think it was George Carlin who made a famous observation about the intelligence of the 'average' person, then concluded that half of the people are somewhere below that.
amanaplanacanal 6y ago
But don’t the same free speech issues apply to both? From a free speech perspective, how are they different?