6 ms·

The problem is that the other guy is saying the same thing you are. The radical left and the radical right both think each other's points are dangerous. And the

The problem is that the other guy is saying the same thing you are. The radical left and the radical right both think each other's points are dangerous. And the moderates are pointing at both sides and claiming the same thing. From their respective viewpoints, they're in the "right", just as you think you are. There's a slippery slope here, and I feel it's one so large that we can't even tell we're already sliding on it. The obvious answer is a well-informed populace that isn't easily swayed by emotion and fear, and has the time and inclination to do their own fact checking. Trouble is, that's obviously a pipe dream. Other ideas, such as Facebook's new governing body are interesting, but I fear will be troublesome in other ways. Still, it's an experiment in the right direction I believe.

uniqueid 6y ago
The problem is that the other guy is saying the same thing you are. Then I hope I win. Cause the other guy really likes firearms and believes Bill Gates is some sort of satanic reptilian timelord. Facebook's new governing body are interesting, but I fear will be troublesome in other ways. I don't see that model making anyone happy because I believe true impartiality is impossible. The honest and less bureaucratic approach for FB to take is to admit the process is subjective.
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
- nicky0 6y ago
  Essentually you are saying: "The other side is wrong, and my side is right." It's not really a nuanced point about the broader issue of speech.
  - bryanrasmussen 6y ago
    Yes, as a general thing saying the other side is wrong and my side is right is just silly, because the other side is saying they're right and your side is wrong, but in the specific case where one side is demonstrably wrong then it isn't silly anymore.
    - nicky0 6y ago
      But the other side believes they are demonstrably right too, just as strongly as you do. The way to "win" is to argue against the opponent's viewpoint and persuade the general population of the strength of your argument. To do that you need a platform for open speech. This is Democracy 101. What you are arguing for is not democracy but "safetyism". You seek a shortcut whereby you can persuade a powerful gatekeeper to silence your oppositon and make you feel better.
  - TomSwirly 6y ago
    I'm not on either side. I don't even live in the United States. But one side, the Republican side, is batshitinsane and believes things that are provably untrue - Obama is a Muslim, climate change is a Chinese hoax, COVID-19 is the flu, that sort of thing. The Democrats are just run-of-the-mill, low-energy centrist politicians.
    - juanani 6y ago
      I have a hard time lumping in swathes of people into these tiny slivers of beliefs. How is it not obvious that one side did a better job of demonizing the other? I'm pretty sure I can comment 'And would like to be able to eat babies' and I will be seeing it on similar posts as yours by tomorrow. The media did one hell of a job this past election cycle, I wonder what batshitinsane things we will be allowed to talk about on the next one. I doubt much. Now that we haved moved censorship officially online as well, I can only hope some wonderful people are busy building the next workaround medium.
    - crististm 6y ago
      Ha, ha! Let me tell you what I think the Democrats believe. For one, that men can carry babies like in that Schwarzenegger movie! Generalizations are useful until they aren't! Let's put our thinking hats for a sec don't you think?
    - deleted 6y ago
      [deleted]
    - deleted 6y ago
      [deleted]
    - uniqueid 6y ago
      I'm sympathetic to that, but by 'Then I hope I win' I certainly wasn't thinking in those terms. The 'side' I was thinking of is reasonable people, not all of whom are left-wingers, let alone Democrats.
  - uniqueid 6y ago
    The point I had in mind is that ideology is well and good, but sometimes pragmatism is better. If a desire for free speech, to pick a contemporary example, leads to defending the 'right' of the Myanmar military to use Facebook for their coup to oppress the Burmese, pragmatism is probably better. Consider Qanon people, or NeoNazis, or Boogaloo Boys, etc. It is impossible to prove beyond any doubt that are more dangerous or more wrong than 'normal' people. But if we're being pragmatic, there isn't a reasonable doubt.
    - nicky0 6y ago
      I agree democracy is messy, but the alternative you suggest is worse.
      - uniqueid 6y ago
        There isn't enough substance in that comment for me to rebut. People often spout platitudes about liberty and democracy without understanding either. With apologies, I will assume that is the case here.
        deleted 6y ago
        [deleted]
        nicky0 6y ago
        Apology accepted.
- concordDance 6y ago
  You seem to be conflating racists with believing Bill Gates is a lizardman. While there may be some overlap I don't think that's an accurate look at the world.
  - uniqueid 6y ago
    We don't disagree there. I wanted to echo the 'other guy' phrase in the comment to which I was replying, but 'other guys' would be less ambiguous. On social media today, there are several different potentially violent movements that concern me.
LordDragonfang 6y ago
>The obvious answer is a well-informed populace that isn't easily swayed by emotion and fear, and has the time and inclination to do their own fact checking. Trouble is, that's obviously a pipe dream. The other trouble is that one side is actively opposed to a "well informed populace" and unironically calls secondary education "liberal brainwashing camps". If you want a well informed populace, you have to privilege the side attempting to get there.
- concordDance 6y ago
  Well... the "other side" would oppose informing the populace that the equality dogma is false (or at least unproven), so it isn't just the far right that likes their myths. Attemps to ban things that are false runs into the difficulty that you need to first determine what is false, which is hard to do if one of the answers might contradict an important value. I should stop replying to political posts with more politics. :/
  - cloudfifty 6y ago
    > the "other side" would oppose informing the populace that the equality dogma is false (or at least unproven) What do you mean by the equality dogma?
    - concordDance 6y ago
      More or less the belief that we are all equal with equal potential (it's more or less a consequence of egalitarianism). That if little Timmy just tries hard enough and is given enough support he'll be able to master differential equations.
      - cloudfifty 6y ago
        Do you have an example of where this belief is expressed? Because the common trope afaik is "From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs". What would be the difference in public policy anyways if after-the-fact results differ?
TomSwirly 6y ago
> The problem is that the other guy is saying the same thing you are. The other guy is also claiming that Trump won the election, global heating is a hoax, COVID-19 is a hoax, Obama is a Muslim from Kenya, and his wife Michelle is a man. > And the moderates are pointing at both sides and claiming the same thing. Sorry, this just isn't so. Your answer boils down to this: "There is no truth. If one person says Michelle Obama is a transsexual man, and the other says she isn't, then both truths are equally good."
- juanani 6y ago
  Have you personally seen Michelle Obama's sexual organs that you can 100% be certain with your claims? Every since the ban on free speech, I really haven't followed what the conspiracies are. What I do hear is 3rd party reports on what those conspiracies are and what 'they believe'. You listed off a bunch of nonsense - do you really think people actually believe that crap or are you the one fooled into thinking someone actually believes that? The more outlandish they sound, the better case for censoring, right? These cases just sound like a reporter went on 4chan, decided they dont like this so they must be the 'other side'. And it was enough to convince the majority that censorship is the way. Better phrased, let's stop giving attention to a desperate media who's only function in this past decade is cancelling culture they don't approve. (culture censorship) Both sides are extremely polarized, only one side seems to be able to share their opinion online. One side believes this is proper because they answer to the 'science'. What does the science say about censorship? We've seen it before.
  - Filligree 6y ago
    > You listed off a bunch of nonsense - do you really think people actually believe that crap or are you the one fooled into thinking someone actually believes that? The more outlandish they sound, the better case for censoring, right? These cases just sound like a reporter went on 4chan, decided they dont like this so they must be the 'other side'. And it was enough to convince the majority that censorship is the way. I personally know someone who believes about half of that. It sure doesn't feel unusual.
- 6y ago

uniqueid 6y ago

The problem is that the other guy is saying the same thing you are. Then I hope I win. Cause the other guy really likes firearms and believes Bill Gates is some sort of satanic reptilian timelord. Facebook's new governing body are interesting, but I fear will be troublesome in other ways. I don't see that model making anyone happy because I believe true impartiality is impossible. The honest and less bureaucratic approach for FB to take is to admit the process is subjective.

deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
nicky0 6y ago
Essentually you are saying: "The other side is wrong, and my side is right." It's not really a nuanced point about the broader issue of speech.
- bryanrasmussen 6y ago
  Yes, as a general thing saying the other side is wrong and my side is right is just silly, because the other side is saying they're right and your side is wrong, but in the specific case where one side is demonstrably wrong then it isn't silly anymore.
  - nicky0 6y ago
    But the other side believes they are demonstrably right too, just as strongly as you do. The way to "win" is to argue against the opponent's viewpoint and persuade the general population of the strength of your argument. To do that you need a platform for open speech. This is Democracy 101. What you are arguing for is not democracy but "safetyism". You seek a shortcut whereby you can persuade a powerful gatekeeper to silence your oppositon and make you feel better.
- TomSwirly 6y ago
  I'm not on either side. I don't even live in the United States. But one side, the Republican side, is batshitinsane and believes things that are provably untrue - Obama is a Muslim, climate change is a Chinese hoax, COVID-19 is the flu, that sort of thing. The Democrats are just run-of-the-mill, low-energy centrist politicians.
  - juanani 6y ago
    I have a hard time lumping in swathes of people into these tiny slivers of beliefs. How is it not obvious that one side did a better job of demonizing the other? I'm pretty sure I can comment 'And would like to be able to eat babies' and I will be seeing it on similar posts as yours by tomorrow. The media did one hell of a job this past election cycle, I wonder what batshitinsane things we will be allowed to talk about on the next one. I doubt much. Now that we haved moved censorship officially online as well, I can only hope some wonderful people are busy building the next workaround medium.
  - crististm 6y ago
    Ha, ha! Let me tell you what I think the Democrats believe. For one, that men can carry babies like in that Schwarzenegger movie! Generalizations are useful until they aren't! Let's put our thinking hats for a sec don't you think?
  - deleted 6y ago
    [deleted]
  - deleted 6y ago
    [deleted]
  - uniqueid 6y ago
    I'm sympathetic to that, but by 'Then I hope I win' I certainly wasn't thinking in those terms. The 'side' I was thinking of is reasonable people, not all of whom are left-wingers, let alone Democrats.
- uniqueid 6y ago
  The point I had in mind is that ideology is well and good, but sometimes pragmatism is better. If a desire for free speech, to pick a contemporary example, leads to defending the 'right' of the Myanmar military to use Facebook for their coup to oppress the Burmese, pragmatism is probably better. Consider Qanon people, or NeoNazis, or Boogaloo Boys, etc. It is impossible to prove beyond any doubt that are more dangerous or more wrong than 'normal' people. But if we're being pragmatic, there isn't a reasonable doubt.
  - nicky0 6y ago
    I agree democracy is messy, but the alternative you suggest is worse.
    - uniqueid 6y ago
      There isn't enough substance in that comment for me to rebut. People often spout platitudes about liberty and democracy without understanding either. With apologies, I will assume that is the case here.
      - deleted 6y ago
        [deleted]
      - nicky0 6y ago
        Apology accepted.
concordDance 6y ago
You seem to be conflating racists with believing Bill Gates is a lizardman. While there may be some overlap I don't think that's an accurate look at the world.
- uniqueid 6y ago
  We don't disagree there. I wanted to echo the 'other guy' phrase in the comment to which I was replying, but 'other guys' would be less ambiguous. On social media today, there are several different potentially violent movements that concern me.

LordDragonfang 6y ago

>The obvious answer is a well-informed populace that isn't easily swayed by emotion and fear, and has the time and inclination to do their own fact checking. Trouble is, that's obviously a pipe dream. The other trouble is that one side is actively opposed to a "well informed populace" and unironically calls secondary education "liberal brainwashing camps". If you want a well informed populace, you have to privilege the side attempting to get there.

concordDance 6y ago
Well... the "other side" would oppose informing the populace that the equality dogma is false (or at least unproven), so it isn't just the far right that likes their myths. Attemps to ban things that are false runs into the difficulty that you need to first determine what is false, which is hard to do if one of the answers might contradict an important value. I should stop replying to political posts with more politics. :/
- cloudfifty 6y ago
  > the "other side" would oppose informing the populace that the equality dogma is false (or at least unproven) What do you mean by the equality dogma?
  - concordDance 6y ago
    More or less the belief that we are all equal with equal potential (it's more or less a consequence of egalitarianism). That if little Timmy just tries hard enough and is given enough support he'll be able to master differential equations.
    - cloudfifty 6y ago
      Do you have an example of where this belief is expressed? Because the common trope afaik is "From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs". What would be the difference in public policy anyways if after-the-fact results differ?

TomSwirly 6y ago

> The problem is that the other guy is saying the same thing you are. The other guy is also claiming that Trump won the election, global heating is a hoax, COVID-19 is a hoax, Obama is a Muslim from Kenya, and his wife Michelle is a man. > And the moderates are pointing at both sides and claiming the same thing. Sorry, this just isn't so. Your answer boils down to this: "There is no truth. If one person says Michelle Obama is a transsexual man, and the other says she isn't, then both truths are equally good."

juanani 6y ago
Have you personally seen Michelle Obama's sexual organs that you can 100% be certain with your claims? Every since the ban on free speech, I really haven't followed what the conspiracies are. What I do hear is 3rd party reports on what those conspiracies are and what 'they believe'. You listed off a bunch of nonsense - do you really think people actually believe that crap or are you the one fooled into thinking someone actually believes that? The more outlandish they sound, the better case for censoring, right? These cases just sound like a reporter went on 4chan, decided they dont like this so they must be the 'other side'. And it was enough to convince the majority that censorship is the way. Better phrased, let's stop giving attention to a desperate media who's only function in this past decade is cancelling culture they don't approve. (culture censorship) Both sides are extremely polarized, only one side seems to be able to share their opinion online. One side believes this is proper because they answer to the 'science'. What does the science say about censorship? We've seen it before.
- Filligree 6y ago
  > You listed off a bunch of nonsense - do you really think people actually believe that crap or are you the one fooled into thinking someone actually believes that? The more outlandish they sound, the better case for censoring, right? These cases just sound like a reporter went on 4chan, decided they dont like this so they must be the 'other side'. And it was enough to convince the majority that censorship is the way. I personally know someone who believes about half of that. It sure doesn't feel unusual.
6y ago