5 ms·

I'm old enough to remember when "gay people are all pedophiles" was the mainstream position given by the New York Times. It was utterly unacceptable to endorse

I'm old enough to remember when "gay people are all pedophiles" was the mainstream position given by the New York Times. It was utterly unacceptable to endorse such perverts. I'm not so old to remember the arguments about how women are too emotional to be allowed to vote, or the ones about black people, but it was pretty unacceptable to come out in defense of either of those groups either. Why in the world would I believe censorship is only going to squash the sort of stuff you list, when there's such a long history of it being used to oppress anyone who thinks they deserve the same rights as the rest of us? Are we going to ban any pro-abortion discussions, because "suggesting we kill innocent people" is absolutely beyond the pale? Do you really think there aren't millions of people in the US drooling at that sort of censorship opportunity?

Pfhreak 6y ago
I think you are correct in that these tools will undoubtedly be used against progressive folks and minorities, as that's historically where they've been used. I believe that Twitch has too much power/authority, but also I believe that it's reasonable to moderate speech in communities and platforms. That said, I believe there's a material difference between examples and what was shared in the parent comment. I don't think one can generalize from "speech calling for violence should be removed from Twitch" to "all unpopular opinions will be suppressed". Yes, it was unpopular (and career limiting) to stand up for LGTBQ+ folks, and those voices rarely got mainstream airtime. Suppressing those voices was wrong, but totally different than prohibiting endorsements of mass violence. I believe we, culturally, can evaluate the difference between "I think gay folks should have equal rights" and "America deserved 9/11" and understand why we should be open to the former and cautious about the latter.
- wongarsu 6y ago
  Both "I think gay folks should have equal rights" and "America deserved 9/11" are fundamentally statements about ethics, and neither is calling for violence.
  - sudosysgen 6y ago
    Yes, that's very true. The second statement though, was a blatant call to violence (if white redneck militia dudes...), and the author did not get banned from twitch, instead they were simply limited in their monetization options. But "America deserved 9/11" was an ethical statement, you're right.
    - bopbeepboop 6y ago
      No, the second statement isn’t a call to violence. > "If that means white redneck militia dudes mowing down dipshit protesters that think they can torch buildings at 10 PM, at this point they have my fucking blessing." This is clearly not a call to violence: it’s an approval of people intervening in serial arson, even if that means using force against the arsonists and lamenting that the state has failed to stop the serial arson, so it may fall to a militia. You can tell that by “if [...], at this point they have my fucking blessing” rather than any call to action. Approving of militias using force to stop serial arsonists when the state has failed to keep the peace is an ethical statement — and one much tamer than “America deserved 9/11”. Most people believe that people have the right to protect themselves when the state fails to maintain peace. I suspect you’re being uncharitable because you personally support the arsonists’ crime spree. What specific violent act do you believe that quote calls for?
      - sudosysgen 6y ago
        "Mowing down" doesn't mean anything except mass murder, generally using fully automatic firearms. We both know this. This is Destiny saying that if it takes someone committing mass murder to stop property damage, it is justified. There's no two ways about it. Whether it is tamer or not than "America deserved 9/11" is a matter of opinion, I won't pronounce myself on it but I totally understand that opinion. It is categorically true that while "America deserved 9/11" is a statement of ethics, saying that you personally bless mass murder to prevent property destruction is incitement of violence.
        bopbeepboop 6y ago
chc 6y ago
These sorts of arguments always fall a bit flat with me for one simple reason: They assume a false causality. Our forbearance doesn't force others to reciprocate. If we try to stop people from encouraging the mass murder of protesters, sure, some people will look for ways to censor other ideas that I support. But if we don't oppose pro-murder propaganda, those people will still look for ways to censor ideas I support. When homophobia was the mainstream opinion, gay perspectives were commonly censored (in the sense we're talking about here of "powerful private parties not wanting to associate with them"). It seems pretty unrealistic to expect reciprocal generosity from someone who thinks protesters should be killed in the street, so I don't see how an argument based on ideas of "What if they did it to you?" could be persuasive.
- jlawson 6y ago
  By the same argument, you'd cheat and steal from literally anyone you could get away with cheating and stealing from. Because not doing it to them doesn't stop them from doing it to you. But this isn't really how it works. Forebearance actually does have value because it changes society as a whole, shifts expectations at a broad scale, and creates moral authority to demand better from others which is persuasive and powerful. At the end of the day, what kind of society do you want to live in? Will you contribute to making that society, or not?
  - chc 6y ago
    I think you have drastically misunderstood my argument. To use your analogy, let's say Bob is constantly stealing from you. You urgently need some essentials, and you say, "I know, I can steal them from Bob." But somebody stops you and says, "Wait, you don't want to do that! If you steal from Bob, he'll steal from you!" You would probably not find this persuasive, because you know Bob will steal from you regardless. There probably are good arguments you can make against stealing from Bob, but that particular one doesn't jibe with reality.
    - jlawson 6y ago
      Let's say your spouse is constantly criticizing you. You feel frustrated, so you criticize them as well. Someone stops you and says, "Wait, you should criticize them less. Then they'll feel less frustrated and might also criticize you less." And you can, and do, and with some decent faith on both sides you can de-escalate. This is basically marriage counseling. This is how relationships improve. You're framing this as a simple prisoner's dilemma problem with sharp-edged binary choices - but it's much more fluid than that in real life. The fluidity non-binaryness of this is even more apparent given it's millions of people we're talking about, over time lasting generations. If life really was a prisoner dilemma cooperation would be impossible.

Pfhreak 6y ago

I think you are correct in that these tools will undoubtedly be used against progressive folks and minorities, as that's historically where they've been used. I believe that Twitch has too much power/authority, but also I believe that it's reasonable to moderate speech in communities and platforms. That said, I believe there's a material difference between examples and what was shared in the parent comment. I don't think one can generalize from "speech calling for violence should be removed from Twitch" to "all unpopular opinions will be suppressed". Yes, it was unpopular (and career limiting) to stand up for LGTBQ+ folks, and those voices rarely got mainstream airtime. Suppressing those voices was wrong, but totally different than prohibiting endorsements of mass violence. I believe we, culturally, can evaluate the difference between "I think gay folks should have equal rights" and "America deserved 9/11" and understand why we should be open to the former and cautious about the latter.

wongarsu 6y ago
Both "I think gay folks should have equal rights" and "America deserved 9/11" are fundamentally statements about ethics, and neither is calling for violence.
- sudosysgen 6y ago
  Yes, that's very true. The second statement though, was a blatant call to violence (if white redneck militia dudes...), and the author did not get banned from twitch, instead they were simply limited in their monetization options. But "America deserved 9/11" was an ethical statement, you're right.
  - bopbeepboop 6y ago
    No, the second statement isn’t a call to violence. > "If that means white redneck militia dudes mowing down dipshit protesters that think they can torch buildings at 10 PM, at this point they have my fucking blessing." This is clearly not a call to violence: it’s an approval of people intervening in serial arson, even if that means using force against the arsonists and lamenting that the state has failed to stop the serial arson, so it may fall to a militia. You can tell that by “if [...], at this point they have my fucking blessing” rather than any call to action. Approving of militias using force to stop serial arsonists when the state has failed to keep the peace is an ethical statement — and one much tamer than “America deserved 9/11”. Most people believe that people have the right to protect themselves when the state fails to maintain peace. I suspect you’re being uncharitable because you personally support the arsonists’ crime spree. What specific violent act do you believe that quote calls for?
    - sudosysgen 6y ago
      "Mowing down" doesn't mean anything except mass murder, generally using fully automatic firearms. We both know this. This is Destiny saying that if it takes someone committing mass murder to stop property damage, it is justified. There's no two ways about it. Whether it is tamer or not than "America deserved 9/11" is a matter of opinion, I won't pronounce myself on it but I totally understand that opinion. It is categorically true that while "America deserved 9/11" is a statement of ethics, saying that you personally bless mass murder to prevent property destruction is incitement of violence.
      - bopbeepboop 6y ago

chc 6y ago

These sorts of arguments always fall a bit flat with me for one simple reason: They assume a false causality. Our forbearance doesn't force others to reciprocate. If we try to stop people from encouraging the mass murder of protesters, sure, some people will look for ways to censor other ideas that I support. But if we don't oppose pro-murder propaganda, those people will still look for ways to censor ideas I support. When homophobia was the mainstream opinion, gay perspectives were commonly censored (in the sense we're talking about here of "powerful private parties not wanting to associate with them"). It seems pretty unrealistic to expect reciprocal generosity from someone who thinks protesters should be killed in the street, so I don't see how an argument based on ideas of "What if they did it to you?" could be persuasive.

jlawson 6y ago
By the same argument, you'd cheat and steal from literally anyone you could get away with cheating and stealing from. Because not doing it to them doesn't stop them from doing it to you. But this isn't really how it works. Forebearance actually does have value because it changes society as a whole, shifts expectations at a broad scale, and creates moral authority to demand better from others which is persuasive and powerful. At the end of the day, what kind of society do you want to live in? Will you contribute to making that society, or not?
- chc 6y ago
  I think you have drastically misunderstood my argument. To use your analogy, let's say Bob is constantly stealing from you. You urgently need some essentials, and you say, "I know, I can steal them from Bob." But somebody stops you and says, "Wait, you don't want to do that! If you steal from Bob, he'll steal from you!" You would probably not find this persuasive, because you know Bob will steal from you regardless. There probably are good arguments you can make against stealing from Bob, but that particular one doesn't jibe with reality.
  - jlawson 6y ago
    Let's say your spouse is constantly criticizing you. You feel frustrated, so you criticize them as well. Someone stops you and says, "Wait, you should criticize them less. Then they'll feel less frustrated and might also criticize you less." And you can, and do, and with some decent faith on both sides you can de-escalate. This is basically marriage counseling. This is how relationships improve. You're framing this as a simple prisoner's dilemma problem with sharp-edged binary choices - but it's much more fluid than that in real life. The fluidity non-binaryness of this is even more apparent given it's millions of people we're talking about, over time lasting generations. If life really was a prisoner dilemma cooperation would be impossible.