8 ms·

You're still using subjective terms like "extremism" in an objective way that the people on the receiving end of that label may not agree with or appreciate.

by Lammy 6y ago

buescher 6y ago
Not only subjective terms like "extremism", but religious terms like "redeemable".
- vlanders10 6y ago
  Also "remorse", which is quite popular among SJW tribunals when they silence someone on unverified testimony of the popular clique members while refusing to hear the "accused" even once.
  - ralmidani 6y ago
    I'm not even close to being a leftist (but sign me up for Social Justice without the tribunals). Regarding your parent post's objection to "redeemable", it's not used in religious contexts exclusively.
    - buescher 6y ago
      Yeah, sure, the original post meant that extremists are redeemable for prizes. The other senses of the term are religious metaphor.
- unethical_ban 6y ago
  You and the people who talk like you are getting downvoted because you're contrarian without actually stating an opposition view to what you're ranting about. Someone: Extremism is bad. You: What is extreme is subjective. The next step would be for you to try to give counter points of what you think is extreme that others consider not, or better, what you think is not extreme that others consider so.
  - wnoise 6y ago
    > You and the people who talk like you are getting downvoted because you're contrarian without actually stating an opposition view to what you're ranting about. That's true, but it also seems to effectively hold for the originals, only with conformity rather than contrarianism: > Someone: Extremism is bad.
  - buescher 6y ago
    You're just fishing for a nice and spicy example. Here is a bland one. I have a big cup of coffee on my desk right now. There are very nice people right here in the USA, some of whom have been my neighbors and about whom I will say nothing derogatory, who think I am endangering my immortal soul by drinking from it. Some might consider taking one or the other stance extreme. I think weighing in publicly on whether such behavior is "redeemable" as if it is for you to decide is wholly inappropriate.
    - unethical_ban 6y ago
      You're looking for some pure, objective reality that will never exist. You have to take a stand at some point; you cannot sit and say "who am I to say?" "Who am I to say if it's wrong to believe people should be killed and enslaved for their skin color? Next thing you know, someone may think I'm extreme for what coffee I drink!" Your argument is inane.
      - buescher 6y ago
        The redemption of (your fictional) people who merely believe your more inflammatory example is not between them and me.
  - wtetzner 6y ago
    > The next step would be for you to try to give counter points of what you think is extreme that others consider not, or better, what you think is not extreme that others consider so. I don't think that's the next step. I think the point is that what is extreme will always be subjective, and there is danger in allowing some group of people to decide what speech is acceptable and what is not.
ralmidani 6y ago
They might not agree with it at first, but eventually, large numbers will realize how non-sensical their movement's ideas are. CNN has profiled former QAnon true believers who are recovering.
- twirlock 6y ago
  CNN is just Fox News for extremists like you though.
- yeetawayhn 6y ago
  CNN is just Fox News for a different flavor of extremist
ethbr0 6y ago
As a child, I admit I was wholly taken in by digital IP extremists. The danger is real! They convinced me that information should be free, that it was my right to download and share anything digital, and that the internet was a borderless utopia of knowledge, limited only by our imaginations. Now, I see the error of my ways and the harm I, and those who thought like me, caused to content creators and distributors. I understand that the internet is safer, more secure, and better when suckled through the benevolent teat of large corporations, whose wisdom and foresight allows it to be restricted, filtered, and repackaged into a socially beneficial form. Don't make the same mistakes I did! Trust in the system.
- salawat 6y ago
  You dropped this! \s
T-hawk 6y ago
This is a major and serious point. A large part of the discourse has become slapping the "extremist" label on every dissenting argument from the other side, regardless of where the position actually is. If you ban extremist speech, then what you've done is create incentive to label everything as extremist.
- ralmidani 6y ago
  I consider myself a centrist; I have been registered as an Independent since the first election in which I voted (21 years ago), and have voted for Republicans and Democrats. Politically, I try to evaluate each idea on the merits rather than which party espouses it. So at least in my case, there is no "other side" which I can mislabel as extremist.
  - sudosysgen 6y ago
    Hahaha, of course there is. There is much more to politics than only Republicans and Democrats - in many countries they would both the be considered as on the same side.
  - jimbokun 6y ago
    That doesn't mean others won't label you as "extremist".
- Viliam1234 6y ago
  It's like the rule: "Don't debate Nazis, just punch them!" Sounds reasonable, but the real fun begins when you add: "Everyone who disagrees with us is a Nazi."
  - elastolin 6y ago
    No, it doesn't sound rasonable. Even if it's real Nazis. It's an absolutely retarded standpoint.
- rodone 6y ago
  That's just not true.
pjc50 6y ago
Al-Quaeda might not appreciate being labelled as extremists, but so what? We have to call things as we see them. And build a consensus around what's core values and within the normal range of debate, and what's beyond that into dangerous, destructive, and even murderous.
- jimbokun 6y ago
  Who is "we" that is determining the acceptable range of debate?
- wtetzner 6y ago
  You ban dangerous actions, not speech. When you start censoring speech, you give a very small group of people the ability to silence whoever the please.
  - claudiawerner 6y ago
    Surely it's also true that when you start preventing actions, you give a very small group of people the ability to prevent the actions of whoever they please. It's hard to see the point being made here.
    - wtetzner 6y ago
      The difference is that when you prevent speech, you can't even discuss changes to the laws. The censorship of speech gives a much different and somewhat hidden form of power.
      - vinay427 6y ago
        > you can't even discuss changes to the laws. This is a type of speech, and there's no reason all speech should be regulated uniformly, just as speech and actions should presumably not be regulated uniformly. We could just prevent actions without bothering with speech at all, but (for instance) it seems similarly doable to ban certain forms of speech that cause unreasonable harm while leaving other forms alone. An argument could be made that this would be yet another slippery slope, but I think at some point every law falls into that category and a society must decide whether the benefits are worth the tradeoff of starting down this path.

You're still using subjective terms like "extremism" in an objective way that the people on the receiving end of that label may not agree with or appreciate.

by Lammy 6y ago

You're still using subjective terms like "extremism" in an objective way that the people on the receiving end of that label may not agree with or appreciate.

buescher 6y ago

Not only subjective terms like "extremism", but religious terms like "redeemable".

vlanders10 6y ago
Also "remorse", which is quite popular among SJW tribunals when they silence someone on unverified testimony of the popular clique members while refusing to hear the "accused" even once.
- ralmidani 6y ago
  I'm not even close to being a leftist (but sign me up for Social Justice without the tribunals). Regarding your parent post's objection to "redeemable", it's not used in religious contexts exclusively.
  - buescher 6y ago
    Yeah, sure, the original post meant that extremists are redeemable for prizes. The other senses of the term are religious metaphor.
unethical_ban 6y ago
You and the people who talk like you are getting downvoted because you're contrarian without actually stating an opposition view to what you're ranting about. Someone: Extremism is bad. You: What is extreme is subjective. The next step would be for you to try to give counter points of what you think is extreme that others consider not, or better, what you think is not extreme that others consider so.
- wnoise 6y ago
  > You and the people who talk like you are getting downvoted because you're contrarian without actually stating an opposition view to what you're ranting about. That's true, but it also seems to effectively hold for the originals, only with conformity rather than contrarianism: > Someone: Extremism is bad.
- buescher 6y ago
  You're just fishing for a nice and spicy example. Here is a bland one. I have a big cup of coffee on my desk right now. There are very nice people right here in the USA, some of whom have been my neighbors and about whom I will say nothing derogatory, who think I am endangering my immortal soul by drinking from it. Some might consider taking one or the other stance extreme. I think weighing in publicly on whether such behavior is "redeemable" as if it is for you to decide is wholly inappropriate.
  - unethical_ban 6y ago
    You're looking for some pure, objective reality that will never exist. You have to take a stand at some point; you cannot sit and say "who am I to say?" "Who am I to say if it's wrong to believe people should be killed and enslaved for their skin color? Next thing you know, someone may think I'm extreme for what coffee I drink!" Your argument is inane.
    - buescher 6y ago
      The redemption of (your fictional) people who merely believe your more inflammatory example is not between them and me.
- wtetzner 6y ago
  > The next step would be for you to try to give counter points of what you think is extreme that others consider not, or better, what you think is not extreme that others consider so. I don't think that's the next step. I think the point is that what is extreme will always be subjective, and there is danger in allowing some group of people to decide what speech is acceptable and what is not.

ralmidani 6y ago

They might not agree with it at first, but eventually, large numbers will realize how non-sensical their movement's ideas are. CNN has profiled former QAnon true believers who are recovering.

twirlock 6y ago
CNN is just Fox News for extremists like you though.
yeetawayhn 6y ago
CNN is just Fox News for a different flavor of extremist

ethbr0 6y ago

As a child, I admit I was wholly taken in by digital IP extremists. The danger is real! They convinced me that information should be free, that it was my right to download and share anything digital, and that the internet was a borderless utopia of knowledge, limited only by our imaginations. Now, I see the error of my ways and the harm I, and those who thought like me, caused to content creators and distributors. I understand that the internet is safer, more secure, and better when suckled through the benevolent teat of large corporations, whose wisdom and foresight allows it to be restricted, filtered, and repackaged into a socially beneficial form. Don't make the same mistakes I did! Trust in the system.

salawat 6y ago
You dropped this! \s

T-hawk 6y ago

This is a major and serious point. A large part of the discourse has become slapping the "extremist" label on every dissenting argument from the other side, regardless of where the position actually is. If you ban extremist speech, then what you've done is create incentive to label everything as extremist.

ralmidani 6y ago
I consider myself a centrist; I have been registered as an Independent since the first election in which I voted (21 years ago), and have voted for Republicans and Democrats. Politically, I try to evaluate each idea on the merits rather than which party espouses it. So at least in my case, there is no "other side" which I can mislabel as extremist.
- sudosysgen 6y ago
  Hahaha, of course there is. There is much more to politics than only Republicans and Democrats - in many countries they would both the be considered as on the same side.
- jimbokun 6y ago
  That doesn't mean others won't label you as "extremist".
Viliam1234 6y ago
It's like the rule: "Don't debate Nazis, just punch them!" Sounds reasonable, but the real fun begins when you add: "Everyone who disagrees with us is a Nazi."
- elastolin 6y ago
  No, it doesn't sound rasonable. Even if it's real Nazis. It's an absolutely retarded standpoint.
rodone 6y ago
That's just not true.

pjc50 6y ago

Al-Quaeda might not appreciate being labelled as extremists, but so what? We have to call things as we see them. And build a consensus around what's core values and within the normal range of debate, and what's beyond that into dangerous, destructive, and even murderous.

jimbokun 6y ago
Who is "we" that is determining the acceptable range of debate?
wtetzner 6y ago
You ban dangerous actions, not speech. When you start censoring speech, you give a very small group of people the ability to silence whoever the please.
- claudiawerner 6y ago
  Surely it's also true that when you start preventing actions, you give a very small group of people the ability to prevent the actions of whoever they please. It's hard to see the point being made here.
  - wtetzner 6y ago
    The difference is that when you prevent speech, you can't even discuss changes to the laws. The censorship of speech gives a much different and somewhat hidden form of power.
    - vinay427 6y ago
      > you can't even discuss changes to the laws. This is a type of speech, and there's no reason all speech should be regulated uniformly, just as speech and actions should presumably not be regulated uniformly. We could just prevent actions without bothering with speech at all, but (for instance) it seems similarly doable to ban certain forms of speech that cause unreasonable harm while leaving other forms alone. An argument could be made that this would be yet another slippery slope, but I think at some point every law falls into that category and a society must decide whether the benefits are worth the tradeoff of starting down this path.