5 ms·

> What ideology is that? Musk has hinted that he views Twitter as a public forum and should be moderated as such. “the two young fish swim on for a bit, and th

> What ideology is that? Musk has hinted that he views Twitter as a public forum and should be moderated as such. “the two young fish swim on for a bit, and then eventually one of them looks over at the other and goes 'What the hell is water?'”

throwaway894345 5y ago
I take your (rather tired) point that for some sufficiently broad definition of "ideology", even moderate viewpoints are "ideologies". Even still, moderation should feel like water to a fish--it should be moderate, it should roughly represent the viewpoints of the people rather than trying to tug the Overton Window in any particular direction (that's activism, not moderation). And yes, this too is subjective--you could argue that moderation should be indistinguishable from far right or far left activism if you really want. EDIT: Seems like a lot of disagreement with this, but would love to hear some compelling arguments to justify activist moderation.
- malermeister 5y ago
  Here's Žižek commenting better than I could: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pIwMIrj5Ulo https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pIwMIrj5Ulo >I already am eating from the trashcan all the time. The name of this trashcan is ideology. The material force of ideology - makes me not see what I'm effectively eating. It's not only our reality which enslaves us. The tragedy of our predicament - when we are within ideology, is that - when we think that we escape it into our dreams - at that point we are within ideology. In other words, what you think of as moderate and not ideological is a result of your ideology itself. For a more thorough, very academic examination of ideology, I can recommend the book The Sublime Object of Ideology.
  - metoodv 5y ago
    Zizek, as usual, is saying something facile but with flowery language to make it seem insightful, but the idea that in order to understand his culture a man must leave it and view it from the outside, the same idea Zizek is sharing here (amid sniffs) is an idea that goes back at least as far as Buddhism, as it is present in the story of the youth of the Buddha. Zizek is very ironically an ideologue himself (a "Hegelian" in his words) and as such his version of the story only contains half the lesson -- that culture, which he calls ideology because he seemingly refuses to truly understand what ideology is, lest admit he is an ideologue, can blind members of that culture to certain things, but without addressing that culture and ideology have positive aspects as well. The man is a neverending font of faux insight and obscurantism posturing as wisdom and this quote is no different from any other.
    - malermeister 5y ago
      I think you thoroughly misunderstood his point. His point is that everything is ideology and that it's inescapable, that obviously includes him. Everyone is an ideologue if you will, some just think their ideology isn't ideology. (and it seems that includes you based on how you contrasted "status quo" and "ideology" in the other comment, as if the status quo were somehow unideological)
      - throwaway894345 5y ago
        But you're missing the point of everyone who is saying "Twitter Inc is too ideological". The point isn't "Twitter should abstain from ideology" as though that's possible in a strict philosophical sense, the point is that they don't need to suffocate users with their ideology. Twitter Inc can remain devoutly woke without spamming user feeds with woke propo. Invariably, topics involving "ideology" are a trap for pedants. They think they're going to get a good "gotcha!" in, but they find themselves hoisted on their own petards.
        malermeister 5y ago
        But that in itself would also be an ideological act. As we've just established, there's no "non-ideological". People who want Twitter to be non-ideological in reality just want it to represent some other ideology instead, they don't get to hide behind some veil of neutrality.
        Stupulous 5y ago
        Your point is that people who want Twitter to be neutral are ideological, because being pro-neutrality is itself an ideology? Even taking that as a given, they could still absolutely hide behind a veil of neutrality- they support neutrality, they're the people they invented the veil for. Or am I misunderstanding?
        throwaway894345 5y ago
        Yes, pushing one’s ideology on people is technically an ideological concern as is the preference not to. But most of us find the latter more agreeable.
  - throwaway894345 5y ago
    "Moderate" doesn't mean "agreeable", it means "opposed to radical/extreme change". These beliefs are moderate by definition, it's not tautological or subjective.
    - malermeister 5y ago
      The definition of moderate itself is ideological. In Saudi Arabia, death penalty for homosexuals would be considered moderate. They would consider your attitude toward free speech around the prophet radical. What you consider moderate is always a result of your ideology. There is no objective moderate, there is only moderate within your ideology. That's exactly what ideology is: It determines what you perceive as "normal" or "moderate".
      - throwaway894345 5y ago
        You're observing that the definition of "moderate" is relative, not ideological. It's just like the definition of "median", my height might be close to the median in a US context, but I would be tall in a Nigerian context. This doesn't imply that the definition of "median" is ideological.
        gbanfalvi 5y ago
        It’s absolutely relative. But what’s the dimension we’re measuring this relativity on? I’d say it’s ideology.
        throwaway894345 5y ago
        Yes, "moderate" describes ideology (no one in this thread questions that), but the OP's claim is that the definition of "moderate" is itself an ideological question. It's a bit meta.
        malermeister 5y ago
        Of course "moderate" is relative. But relative to what? Relative to your ideology. You'd be tall in Nigeria relative to the median height. You'd be a moderate in the US and a radical in Saudi Arabia relative to the prevailing ideology.
- metoodv 5y ago
  There is no justification, you're staking a position against radical politics, that is, politics that seeks to dismantle the current society and replace it with an ideological vision, and the agents of the dominant ideology which has no name (called Woke by its detractors) are mad that you are challenging one of their many parables from their scripture. Hence downvotes.
  - malermeister 5y ago
    What is the current society if not an ideological vision? Who says the status quo is not radical?
    - throwaway894345 5y ago
      Whether or not the status quo is an "ideology" is a semantic distraction. For some strict technical definition of "ideology", it may well be, but the interesting question is whether or not it's radical. Since the status quo refers to mainstream, moderate attitudes, it can't be radical by definition (radical and moderate are antonyms).
      - malermeister 5y ago
        Who says mainstream attitudes are moderate? To a devout Muslim, the amount of freedom of speech we have around the prophet is radical. To a leftist, the exploitation of laborers by the capitalist class is radical. To the religious right, LGBT rights are radical. To racists, race mixing is radical. The only thing that makes it seem moderate to you is your ideology.
        throwaway894345 5y ago
        Mainstream attitudes are moderate by definition ("A moderate is considered someone occupying any mainstream position avoiding extreme views and major social change." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_moderate https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_moderate). Both "mainstream" and "moderate" are relative terms with respect to some population. > To a devout Muslim, the amount of freedom of speech we have around the prophet is radical. To a leftist, the exploitation of laborers by the capitalist class is radical. To the religious right, LGBT rights are radical. To racists, race mixing is radical. Yep, you're observing that "moderate" is a relative term. Different groups have different Overton windows. > The only thing that makes it seem moderate to you is your ideology. No, it doesn't matter what my ideology is, it matters what context we're talking about. That context is often implicit, but that doesn't mean the notion of "moderate" is ideological. If someone says "Joe is of median height", do you leap out from behind the bushes and yell "gotcha! 'median' is an ideological term! In Nigeria Joe is tall!"? That doesn't mean "median" is an ideological term, it means that it's dependent on the context, in which case the context is probably something like "whatever country Joe lives in".
- wwweston 5y ago
  To be much more specific: the idea that Twitter has a free speech problem is itself immoderate and ideological. There is an unquestionably huge range of ideas that can be not only freely but rather aggressively expressed on twitter. There is a very narrow range of speech that is disallowed and even a considerable amount of that actually gets through. To be concerned about the narrow range that is disallowed and see that as ideologically motivated is to swim in the waters of ones own unexamined ideological biases. And that’s being charitable, as many of those who complain about the bias of twitter know full well they’re actually remarkably privileged when it comes to not only freedom of speech but being heard and regarded, they just know that among a certain audience that shares the sense that their views/expressions should be privileged, the posture of loss of privilege as victimhood can be used as a tool of manipulation. Combine that with the culture that understands free speech issues in this way more generally: less from a regard for the value of liberal discourse and more for the privilege of indulgent speech, related to the idea “my ignorance is as good as your knowledge” but extended into the realm of stewardship or even ownership of an entire platform. This indulgent and degraded view of free speech is required in order to understand twitter as a repressive forum as a consequence of limits on things like some trans jokes and deadnaming or even advocacy of identity-focused violence, which can only feel like repression to someone who fundamentally has nothing else of value to say. If that seems tired to you, I’d be happy to inject more vigor.
  - throwaway894345 5y ago
    The "tired" bit that I was referring to is the popular compulsion to miss the point in order to score a "gotcha!" by invoking the strict philosophical definition when someone says something like, "Twitter Inc is too ideological". Of course, when people say things like this, they're not usually meaning "Twitter Inc" is too ideological, it's that they are too aggressive about pushing their ideology. They could remain devout leftists without spamming everyone's feeds with leftist propaganda, for example. > To be much more specific: the idea that Twitter has a free speech problem is itself immoderate and ideological. It's ideological in the sense that "free speech is desirable" is ideological. Arguing that it's "immoderate" implies that arguing for stronger free speech protections is radical, which is untrue. > There is an unquestionably huge range of ideas that can be not only freely but rather aggressively expressed on twitter. There is a very narrow range of speech that is disallowed and even a considerable amount of that actually gets through. I'm not going to die on the hill of "Twitter needs to be less censorious", but free speech proponents can still legitimately find Twitter problematic even if the censors allow a lot of wrongthink through. For example, Twitter can sort replies by ideology such that wrongthink is much less likely to be seen. It could hide wrongthink from various users altogether. Whether or not it actually does any of these is difficult to assess because there's no transparency. > Combine that with the culture that understands free speech issues in this way more generally: less from a regard for the value of liberal discourse and more for the privilege of indulgent speech, related to the idea “my ignorance is as good as your knowledge” but extended into the realm of stewardship or even ownership of an entire platform. Yes, we have a broken epistemology, but this is the result of the politicization of institutions (especially by the left wing). Specifically, the left wing argues that because perfect neutrality and objectivity are impossible thus we should wholesale abandon the pursuit thereof and instead be doggedly (and ideologically homogeneously) activist. This predictably damages trust in the institutions which in turn drives people toward other institutions, many of which are less savory.

throwaway894345 5y ago

I take your (rather tired) point that for some sufficiently broad definition of "ideology", even moderate viewpoints are "ideologies". Even still, moderation should feel like water to a fish--it should be moderate, it should roughly represent the viewpoints of the people rather than trying to tug the Overton Window in any particular direction (that's activism, not moderation). And yes, this too is subjective--you could argue that moderation should be indistinguishable from far right or far left activism if you really want. EDIT: Seems like a lot of disagreement with this, but would love to hear some compelling arguments to justify activist moderation.

malermeister 5y ago
Here's Žižek commenting better than I could: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pIwMIrj5Ulo https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pIwMIrj5Ulo >I already am eating from the trashcan all the time. The name of this trashcan is ideology. The material force of ideology - makes me not see what I'm effectively eating. It's not only our reality which enslaves us. The tragedy of our predicament - when we are within ideology, is that - when we think that we escape it into our dreams - at that point we are within ideology. In other words, what you think of as moderate and not ideological is a result of your ideology itself. For a more thorough, very academic examination of ideology, I can recommend the book The Sublime Object of Ideology.
- metoodv 5y ago
  Zizek, as usual, is saying something facile but with flowery language to make it seem insightful, but the idea that in order to understand his culture a man must leave it and view it from the outside, the same idea Zizek is sharing here (amid sniffs) is an idea that goes back at least as far as Buddhism, as it is present in the story of the youth of the Buddha. Zizek is very ironically an ideologue himself (a "Hegelian" in his words) and as such his version of the story only contains half the lesson -- that culture, which he calls ideology because he seemingly refuses to truly understand what ideology is, lest admit he is an ideologue, can blind members of that culture to certain things, but without addressing that culture and ideology have positive aspects as well. The man is a neverending font of faux insight and obscurantism posturing as wisdom and this quote is no different from any other.
  - malermeister 5y ago
    I think you thoroughly misunderstood his point. His point is that everything is ideology and that it's inescapable, that obviously includes him. Everyone is an ideologue if you will, some just think their ideology isn't ideology. (and it seems that includes you based on how you contrasted "status quo" and "ideology" in the other comment, as if the status quo were somehow unideological)
    - throwaway894345 5y ago
      But you're missing the point of everyone who is saying "Twitter Inc is too ideological". The point isn't "Twitter should abstain from ideology" as though that's possible in a strict philosophical sense, the point is that they don't need to suffocate users with their ideology. Twitter Inc can remain devoutly woke without spamming user feeds with woke propo. Invariably, topics involving "ideology" are a trap for pedants. They think they're going to get a good "gotcha!" in, but they find themselves hoisted on their own petards.
      - malermeister 5y ago
        But that in itself would also be an ideological act. As we've just established, there's no "non-ideological". People who want Twitter to be non-ideological in reality just want it to represent some other ideology instead, they don't get to hide behind some veil of neutrality.
        Stupulous 5y ago
        Your point is that people who want Twitter to be neutral are ideological, because being pro-neutrality is itself an ideology? Even taking that as a given, they could still absolutely hide behind a veil of neutrality- they support neutrality, they're the people they invented the veil for. Or am I misunderstanding?
        throwaway894345 5y ago
        Yes, pushing one’s ideology on people is technically an ideological concern as is the preference not to. But most of us find the latter more agreeable.
- throwaway894345 5y ago
  "Moderate" doesn't mean "agreeable", it means "opposed to radical/extreme change". These beliefs are moderate by definition, it's not tautological or subjective.
  - malermeister 5y ago
    The definition of moderate itself is ideological. In Saudi Arabia, death penalty for homosexuals would be considered moderate. They would consider your attitude toward free speech around the prophet radical. What you consider moderate is always a result of your ideology. There is no objective moderate, there is only moderate within your ideology. That's exactly what ideology is: It determines what you perceive as "normal" or "moderate".
    - throwaway894345 5y ago
      You're observing that the definition of "moderate" is relative, not ideological. It's just like the definition of "median", my height might be close to the median in a US context, but I would be tall in a Nigerian context. This doesn't imply that the definition of "median" is ideological.
      - gbanfalvi 5y ago
        It’s absolutely relative. But what’s the dimension we’re measuring this relativity on? I’d say it’s ideology.
        throwaway894345 5y ago
        Yes, "moderate" describes ideology (no one in this thread questions that), but the OP's claim is that the definition of "moderate" is itself an ideological question. It's a bit meta.
      - malermeister 5y ago
        Of course "moderate" is relative. But relative to what? Relative to your ideology. You'd be tall in Nigeria relative to the median height. You'd be a moderate in the US and a radical in Saudi Arabia relative to the prevailing ideology.
metoodv 5y ago
There is no justification, you're staking a position against radical politics, that is, politics that seeks to dismantle the current society and replace it with an ideological vision, and the agents of the dominant ideology which has no name (called Woke by its detractors) are mad that you are challenging one of their many parables from their scripture. Hence downvotes.
- malermeister 5y ago
  What is the current society if not an ideological vision? Who says the status quo is not radical?
  - throwaway894345 5y ago
    Whether or not the status quo is an "ideology" is a semantic distraction. For some strict technical definition of "ideology", it may well be, but the interesting question is whether or not it's radical. Since the status quo refers to mainstream, moderate attitudes, it can't be radical by definition (radical and moderate are antonyms).
    - malermeister 5y ago
      Who says mainstream attitudes are moderate? To a devout Muslim, the amount of freedom of speech we have around the prophet is radical. To a leftist, the exploitation of laborers by the capitalist class is radical. To the religious right, LGBT rights are radical. To racists, race mixing is radical. The only thing that makes it seem moderate to you is your ideology.
      - throwaway894345 5y ago
        Mainstream attitudes are moderate by definition ("A moderate is considered someone occupying any mainstream position avoiding extreme views and major social change." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_moderate https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_moderate). Both "mainstream" and "moderate" are relative terms with respect to some population. > To a devout Muslim, the amount of freedom of speech we have around the prophet is radical. To a leftist, the exploitation of laborers by the capitalist class is radical. To the religious right, LGBT rights are radical. To racists, race mixing is radical. Yep, you're observing that "moderate" is a relative term. Different groups have different Overton windows. > The only thing that makes it seem moderate to you is your ideology. No, it doesn't matter what my ideology is, it matters what context we're talking about. That context is often implicit, but that doesn't mean the notion of "moderate" is ideological. If someone says "Joe is of median height", do you leap out from behind the bushes and yell "gotcha! 'median' is an ideological term! In Nigeria Joe is tall!"? That doesn't mean "median" is an ideological term, it means that it's dependent on the context, in which case the context is probably something like "whatever country Joe lives in".
wwweston 5y ago
To be much more specific: the idea that Twitter has a free speech problem is itself immoderate and ideological. There is an unquestionably huge range of ideas that can be not only freely but rather aggressively expressed on twitter. There is a very narrow range of speech that is disallowed and even a considerable amount of that actually gets through. To be concerned about the narrow range that is disallowed and see that as ideologically motivated is to swim in the waters of ones own unexamined ideological biases. And that’s being charitable, as many of those who complain about the bias of twitter know full well they’re actually remarkably privileged when it comes to not only freedom of speech but being heard and regarded, they just know that among a certain audience that shares the sense that their views/expressions should be privileged, the posture of loss of privilege as victimhood can be used as a tool of manipulation. Combine that with the culture that understands free speech issues in this way more generally: less from a regard for the value of liberal discourse and more for the privilege of indulgent speech, related to the idea “my ignorance is as good as your knowledge” but extended into the realm of stewardship or even ownership of an entire platform. This indulgent and degraded view of free speech is required in order to understand twitter as a repressive forum as a consequence of limits on things like some trans jokes and deadnaming or even advocacy of identity-focused violence, which can only feel like repression to someone who fundamentally has nothing else of value to say. If that seems tired to you, I’d be happy to inject more vigor.
- throwaway894345 5y ago
  The "tired" bit that I was referring to is the popular compulsion to miss the point in order to score a "gotcha!" by invoking the strict philosophical definition when someone says something like, "Twitter Inc is too ideological". Of course, when people say things like this, they're not usually meaning "Twitter Inc" is too ideological, it's that they are too aggressive about pushing their ideology. They could remain devout leftists without spamming everyone's feeds with leftist propaganda, for example. > To be much more specific: the idea that Twitter has a free speech problem is itself immoderate and ideological. It's ideological in the sense that "free speech is desirable" is ideological. Arguing that it's "immoderate" implies that arguing for stronger free speech protections is radical, which is untrue. > There is an unquestionably huge range of ideas that can be not only freely but rather aggressively expressed on twitter. There is a very narrow range of speech that is disallowed and even a considerable amount of that actually gets through. I'm not going to die on the hill of "Twitter needs to be less censorious", but free speech proponents can still legitimately find Twitter problematic even if the censors allow a lot of wrongthink through. For example, Twitter can sort replies by ideology such that wrongthink is much less likely to be seen. It could hide wrongthink from various users altogether. Whether or not it actually does any of these is difficult to assess because there's no transparency. > Combine that with the culture that understands free speech issues in this way more generally: less from a regard for the value of liberal discourse and more for the privilege of indulgent speech, related to the idea “my ignorance is as good as your knowledge” but extended into the realm of stewardship or even ownership of an entire platform. Yes, we have a broken epistemology, but this is the result of the politicization of institutions (especially by the left wing). Specifically, the left wing argues that because perfect neutrality and objectivity are impossible thus we should wholesale abandon the pursuit thereof and instead be doggedly (and ideologically homogeneously) activist. This predictably damages trust in the institutions which in turn drives people toward other institutions, many of which are less savory.