4 ms·

Worse, I think social media censorship exacerbates the issue in certain cases. For example pointing out that the number of unarmed Blacks killed by police is ac

Worse, I think social media censorship exacerbates the issue in certain cases. For example pointing out that the number of unarmed Blacks killed by police is actually very low (https://www.lawenforcementtoday.com/poll-44-of-liberals-say-more-than-1k-unarmed-black-americans-killed-by-police-in-2019-hint-super-wrong/ https://www.lawenforcementtoday.com/poll-44-of-liberals-say-...) gets you mass reporting from dedicated activists and results in your post being blocked or account bans. Because the medium (Twitter) is itself editorializing the content through censorship, the mass amplification of bad ideas can happen unabated since others don’t get to push back. It’s funny that “virality” was once seen as a positive feature of social media. Gad Saad, Professor of Evolutionary Psychology, explores the concept of “idea pathogens” (that infect minds and spread like viruses) in his book The Parasitic Mind (https://bookshop.org/books/the-parasitic-mind-how-infectious-ideas-are-killing-common-sense/9781621579595 https://bookshop.org/books/the-parasitic-mind-how-infectious...). You can hear him speak about this concept in his interview on the Jordan Peterson podcast (https://www.jordanbpeterson.com/podcast/gadsaad/ https://www.jordanbpeterson.com/podcast/gadsaad/). Social media is the breeding ground for idea pathogens.

mempko 6y ago
If someone told you two people are dieing every month from poisonous McDonald's burgers, would you consider that low? And would you defend McDonald's on internet forums?
- teddyh 6y ago
  Should anyone defending McDonald’s be banned for doing so?
- throwawaysea 6y ago
  I would consider that low if they’re selling millions of burgers a month. Every large scale system has imperfections and it’s unreasonable to expect 100% safety or 100% perfection on some other metric. Then there’s the question of attributing the deaths. For example the people who died may have had other complicating factors. If it ends up being food poisoning at some unacceptable rate of occurrence with provable link to McDonalds burgers, I would welcome investigations and incremental improvements. What I wouldn’t do is call for McDonalds to be defunded/abolished, or for fast food to be replaced by an alternative food system, or label anyone who disagrees as racist, or inject my ideology into schools/companies, or censor those who disagree. Nor would I participate in repeated rioting resulting in several deaths and billions of Dollars of damage. Instead I would work within the system, in a legal and civil manner. I would welcome an open debate in the spirit of classical liberalism. I would want a nuanced understanding and nuanced set of actions to result. Lastly - would I spend time defending McDonalds on forums? Probably not since it’s not that important to me and I have other fast food choices. But I only have one local police force to depend on. And the safety of my own family and property hangs in the balance. So I would definitely engage on that topic.
  - mempko 6y ago
    On your final point. What do you believe protects your family safety more, a police force or well educated and taken care of neighbors. What percentage on health and education and other services would you allocate tax dollars on vs policing?
bildung 6y ago
You probably get reported because that is a particularly silly hill to die on. Every niche gets these things wrong. Random example: "Majority of Republicans think evangelical Christians are more discriminated against than minorities" https://archive.thinkprogress.org/republicans-evangelical-christians-minorities-discriminiation-84e2408edb8a/ https://archive.thinkprogress.org/republicans-evangelical-ch... You know what the actual problem is? That this number is larger than zero at all. Police violence in the US is completely nuts, there were 999 deaths in 2019 alone. The population-adjusted number from Germany is 55 (actual deaths by police were 14). Which is still too much.
- throwawaysea 6y ago
  Why do you think it’s too much? That seems arbitrary. Some people do bad things and risk harm to others. When those situations are immediately in front of someone like a policeman, action has to be taken. I recall reading an article digging into all the 2019 cases of unarmed blacks killed by police and only one seemed outright unjust - and the police in that case were charged. This made me feel the system by and large is working well. But my main point isn’t to debate policing. It’s that reasonable discussion is disallowed due to vague content policies like banning “hate speech” (very fluidly defined) and the ability for coordinated brigades to mass report and block dissenting viewpoints. This allows one sided unrefined ideas to be the only ones in circulation, and they get amplified without anything to slow it down, without anything to add nuance.
  - bildung 6y ago
    > Why do you think it’s too much? That seems arbitrary. Because, as stated, apparently police other countries manages to cope with dangerous situations without killing everyone in sight. Keep in mind that most of those situations aren't hollywood-style standoffs - many of the victoms are e.g. mentally ill during a psychotic episode etc. > This made me feel the system by and large is working well. We are talking about 2000% higher kill rates compared to other industrialized countries (Germany isn't particulary peaceful, just average).
pessimizer 6y ago
> For example pointing out that the number of unarmed Blacks killed by police is actually very low (https://www.lawenforcementtoday.com/poll-44-of-liberals-say- https://www.lawenforcementtoday.com/poll-44-of-liberals-say-...) gets you mass reporting from dedicated activists and results in your post being blocked or account bans. No, this is because extremely online people fight each other by begging the owners of websites to censor their enemies. It has nothing to do with the bad argument, which John Birchers would see as ancient.

mempko 6y ago

If someone told you two people are dieing every month from poisonous McDonald's burgers, would you consider that low? And would you defend McDonald's on internet forums?

teddyh 6y ago
Should anyone defending McDonald’s be banned for doing so?
throwawaysea 6y ago
I would consider that low if they’re selling millions of burgers a month. Every large scale system has imperfections and it’s unreasonable to expect 100% safety or 100% perfection on some other metric. Then there’s the question of attributing the deaths. For example the people who died may have had other complicating factors. If it ends up being food poisoning at some unacceptable rate of occurrence with provable link to McDonalds burgers, I would welcome investigations and incremental improvements. What I wouldn’t do is call for McDonalds to be defunded/abolished, or for fast food to be replaced by an alternative food system, or label anyone who disagrees as racist, or inject my ideology into schools/companies, or censor those who disagree. Nor would I participate in repeated rioting resulting in several deaths and billions of Dollars of damage. Instead I would work within the system, in a legal and civil manner. I would welcome an open debate in the spirit of classical liberalism. I would want a nuanced understanding and nuanced set of actions to result. Lastly - would I spend time defending McDonalds on forums? Probably not since it’s not that important to me and I have other fast food choices. But I only have one local police force to depend on. And the safety of my own family and property hangs in the balance. So I would definitely engage on that topic.
- mempko 6y ago
  On your final point. What do you believe protects your family safety more, a police force or well educated and taken care of neighbors. What percentage on health and education and other services would you allocate tax dollars on vs policing?

bildung 6y ago

You probably get reported because that is a particularly silly hill to die on. Every niche gets these things wrong. Random example: "Majority of Republicans think evangelical Christians are more discriminated against than minorities" https://archive.thinkprogress.org/republicans-evangelical-christians-minorities-discriminiation-84e2408edb8a/ https://archive.thinkprogress.org/republicans-evangelical-ch... You know what the actual problem is? That this number is larger than zero at all. Police violence in the US is completely nuts, there were 999 deaths in 2019 alone. The population-adjusted number from Germany is 55 (actual deaths by police were 14). Which is still too much.

throwawaysea 6y ago
Why do you think it’s too much? That seems arbitrary. Some people do bad things and risk harm to others. When those situations are immediately in front of someone like a policeman, action has to be taken. I recall reading an article digging into all the 2019 cases of unarmed blacks killed by police and only one seemed outright unjust - and the police in that case were charged. This made me feel the system by and large is working well. But my main point isn’t to debate policing. It’s that reasonable discussion is disallowed due to vague content policies like banning “hate speech” (very fluidly defined) and the ability for coordinated brigades to mass report and block dissenting viewpoints. This allows one sided unrefined ideas to be the only ones in circulation, and they get amplified without anything to slow it down, without anything to add nuance.
- bildung 6y ago
  > Why do you think it’s too much? That seems arbitrary. Because, as stated, apparently police other countries manages to cope with dangerous situations without killing everyone in sight. Keep in mind that most of those situations aren't hollywood-style standoffs - many of the victoms are e.g. mentally ill during a psychotic episode etc. > This made me feel the system by and large is working well. We are talking about 2000% higher kill rates compared to other industrialized countries (Germany isn't particulary peaceful, just average).

pessimizer 6y ago

> For example pointing out that the number of unarmed Blacks killed by police is actually very low (https://www.lawenforcementtoday.com/poll-44-of-liberals-say- https://www.lawenforcementtoday.com/poll-44-of-liberals-say-...) gets you mass reporting from dedicated activists and results in your post being blocked or account bans. No, this is because extremely online people fight each other by begging the owners of websites to censor their enemies. It has nothing to do with the bad argument, which John Birchers would see as ancient.