2 ms·

I'm of the opinion that ignorance and closed-mindedness is the problem, not what ignorant and closed-minded people come up with. Can't fight fire with fire. Tha

by dmos62 5y ago

I'm of the opinion that ignorance and closed-mindedness is the problem, not what ignorant and closed-minded people come up with. Can't fight fire with fire. That's why I don't think that we should identify them with their ideas. For the purposes of society, their discussions on that site are (supposedly) destructive. That's all the information we need to have a wholesome debate. To withdraw to identifying people with their world-views is to give up on having a meaningful relationship. We do it because we can't tolerate them. The conclusion of that train of reactions is violence.

gunshai 5y ago
It is nice to see this sentiment I hope to continue to see more of it not only in words but action as well. I've been taking a stand in my own life with friends about having hard conversations and not just drinking the coolaid of every inflammatory headline. Its been very difficult to discussing with some friends that their views are far more radical than they realize. Some time these conversations can be agonizing because ultimately you may not care "what side is correct" just that there is an honest discussion about the facts of the matter and even going into the facts of the matter can cause repulsive reactions. Its strange the world we live in, in terms of discussions of ideas.
shadowgovt 5y ago
> Can't fight fire with fire That aphorism has never really been true. If it's "fire" in the sense of projectile weapons, then of course you can. If it's "fire" in the sense of "forest fire," a controlled or prescribed burn is an oft-used technique to cut off a forest fire by creating an unburnable zone around it... The fire can't find fuel in an already-burned area, so it can no longer feed itself and dies out.
- dmos62 5y ago
  Can you fight hatred with hatred? Even if you end up killing those you hated, you'll still be worse off because the whole acting out against others was premised on others being responsible for the hatred you feel, which is false, the hatred is a projection of your own inner turmoil, so you'd still be hateful, and now you've sown the seed of hate yourself. Repeat until convinced. To use your example, it's like fighting fire by putting your hair on fire. It kind of helps, but only in a very perverted sense.
  - BlueTemplar 5y ago
    Yes, this is probably a bad idea, on the other hand the "paradox of tolerance" is a thing. (Note that it should still apply to actions rather than ideas.)
    - hombre_fatal 5y ago
      “Paradox of tolerance” is only a thing that someone once argued that it existed and people misrepresented it in that cartoon that is usually what anybody thinks they know about the original utterance. Like in this thread it’s also usually uttered as some sort of axiom rather than an idea up for debate.
      - BlueTemplar 5y ago
        I don't even know what cartoon you're talking about. I was referring to : “The so-called paradox of freedom is the argument that freedom in the sense of absence of any constraining control must lead to very great restraint, since it makes the bully free to enslave the meek. The idea is, in a slightly different form, and with very different tendency, clearly expressed in Plato. Less well known is the paradox of tolerance: Unlimited tolerance must lead to the disappearance of tolerance. If we extend unlimited tolerance even to those who are intolerant, if we are not prepared to defend a tolerant society against the onslaught of the intolerant, then the tolerant will be destroyed, and tolerance with them. — In this formulation, I do not imply, for instance, that we should always suppress the utterance of intolerant philosophies; as long as we can counter them by rational argument and keep them in check by public opinion, suppression would certainly be unwise. But we should claim the right to suppress them if necessary even by force; for it may easily turn out that they are not prepared to meet us on the level of rational argument, but begin by denouncing all argument; they may forbid their followers to listen to rational argument, because it is deceptive, and teach them to answer arguments by the use of their fists or pistols. We should therefore claim, in the name of tolerance, the right not to tolerate the intolerant. We should claim that any movement preaching intolerance places itself outside the law, and we should consider incitement to intolerance and persecution as criminal, in the same way as we should consider incitement to murder, or to kidnapping, or to the revival of the slave trade, as criminal.” ― Karl Raimund Popper, The Open Society and Its Enemies ---- But anyway, IMHO it's not for websites to police free speech, that's what the judiciary is for. I'm not sure whether I consider the new EU terrorist content regulation to be good or bad, it's going to depend on what "competent authority" giving the removal orders means. The "specific measures to protect [...] against dissemination to the public of terrorist content" just seem like usual moderation tools, but again, it's left to be seen what is going to happen in practice.

by dmos62 5y ago

gunshai 5y ago

It is nice to see this sentiment I hope to continue to see more of it not only in words but action as well. I've been taking a stand in my own life with friends about having hard conversations and not just drinking the coolaid of every inflammatory headline. Its been very difficult to discussing with some friends that their views are far more radical than they realize. Some time these conversations can be agonizing because ultimately you may not care "what side is correct" just that there is an honest discussion about the facts of the matter and even going into the facts of the matter can cause repulsive reactions. Its strange the world we live in, in terms of discussions of ideas.

shadowgovt 5y ago

> Can't fight fire with fire That aphorism has never really been true. If it's "fire" in the sense of projectile weapons, then of course you can. If it's "fire" in the sense of "forest fire," a controlled or prescribed burn is an oft-used technique to cut off a forest fire by creating an unburnable zone around it... The fire can't find fuel in an already-burned area, so it can no longer feed itself and dies out.

dmos62 5y ago
Can you fight hatred with hatred? Even if you end up killing those you hated, you'll still be worse off because the whole acting out against others was premised on others being responsible for the hatred you feel, which is false, the hatred is a projection of your own inner turmoil, so you'd still be hateful, and now you've sown the seed of hate yourself. Repeat until convinced. To use your example, it's like fighting fire by putting your hair on fire. It kind of helps, but only in a very perverted sense.
- BlueTemplar 5y ago
  Yes, this is probably a bad idea, on the other hand the "paradox of tolerance" is a thing. (Note that it should still apply to actions rather than ideas.)
  - hombre_fatal 5y ago
    “Paradox of tolerance” is only a thing that someone once argued that it existed and people misrepresented it in that cartoon that is usually what anybody thinks they know about the original utterance. Like in this thread it’s also usually uttered as some sort of axiom rather than an idea up for debate.
    - BlueTemplar 5y ago
      I don't even know what cartoon you're talking about. I was referring to : “The so-called paradox of freedom is the argument that freedom in the sense of absence of any constraining control must lead to very great restraint, since it makes the bully free to enslave the meek. The idea is, in a slightly different form, and with very different tendency, clearly expressed in Plato. Less well known is the paradox of tolerance: Unlimited tolerance must lead to the disappearance of tolerance. If we extend unlimited tolerance even to those who are intolerant, if we are not prepared to defend a tolerant society against the onslaught of the intolerant, then the tolerant will be destroyed, and tolerance with them. — In this formulation, I do not imply, for instance, that we should always suppress the utterance of intolerant philosophies; as long as we can counter them by rational argument and keep them in check by public opinion, suppression would certainly be unwise. But we should claim the right to suppress them if necessary even by force; for it may easily turn out that they are not prepared to meet us on the level of rational argument, but begin by denouncing all argument; they may forbid their followers to listen to rational argument, because it is deceptive, and teach them to answer arguments by the use of their fists or pistols. We should therefore claim, in the name of tolerance, the right not to tolerate the intolerant. We should claim that any movement preaching intolerance places itself outside the law, and we should consider incitement to intolerance and persecution as criminal, in the same way as we should consider incitement to murder, or to kidnapping, or to the revival of the slave trade, as criminal.” ― Karl Raimund Popper, The Open Society and Its Enemies ---- But anyway, IMHO it's not for websites to police free speech, that's what the judiciary is for. I'm not sure whether I consider the new EU terrorist content regulation to be good or bad, it's going to depend on what "competent authority" giving the removal orders means. The "specific measures to protect [...] against dissemination to the public of terrorist content" just seem like usual moderation tools, but again, it's left to be seen what is going to happen in practice.