5 ms·
Nah, banning does work. People who are banned are forced to rely on word of mouth and lose out on algorithmic amplification.
by namlem 4y ago
Nah, banning does work. People who are banned are forced to rely on word of mouth and lose out on algorithmic amplification.
- sn0w_crash 4y agoLike they did for thousands of years before 2010? The “banning works” takes such a narrow view of time it’s remarkable. There was a world before YouTube, before internet, and before television. Horrible ideas spread when they are unchallenged, not when they are driven underground.
- vimacs2 4y agoNope, not even close to the truth. You should probably stop spreading FUD when it's apparent you don't know one iota about history. When an idea is transparently horrible, it's proponents are not interested in discussion except as a means to propogate their message to others. In a reasoned debate, fascists always have to work the least because it always takes more mental effort to debunk a terrible idea than stating said idea. Meanwhile, adhering to the rules of respectability means the fascist gets to expose far more people to their message in a format where they get to express their message without interruption. The only reason why you should ever talk to a fascist is to ridicule them. Jean Paul-Satre put it best when talking about anti-Semites (though it really applies to all strains of fascism): "Never believe that anti-Semites are completely unaware of the absurdity of their replies. They know that their remarks are frivolous, open to challenge. But they are amusing themselves, for it is their adversary who is obliged to use words responsibly, since he believes in words. The anti-Semites have the right to play. They even like to play with discourse for, by giving ridiculous reasons, they discredit the seriousness of their interlocutors. They delight in acting in bad faith, since they seek not to persuade by sound argument but to intimidate and disconcert. If you press them too closely, they will abruptly fall silent, loftily indicating by some phrase that the time for argument is past."
- apostacy 4y agoWhat if you get called the fascist then? Anything you say to defend yourself is just fascist mind tricks. Denials are just more evidence of guilt. I would still defend your right to call for us to be silenced.
- vimacs2 4y agoAgain, this is just more absurd hypothetical scenarios. The reality is never as ambiguous as you're painting it. What you're describing is how a fascist would conduct a confrontation, not anybody who believes in truth. Nobody here is saying "denials are evidence of guilt" and fascists are not Jedis. Also, nobody is being silenced here either because there is no obligation built into the first amendment or even the very concept of Free speech to provide a platform for anybody.
- toomuchtodo 4y agoHorrible ideas spread even when challenged, because of human failings. Terrible people will find ways to justify or simply not care what others think of their beliefs. Sunlight does not always disinfect.
- UncleMeat 4y agoWill Tate's disgusting misogyny actually go unchallenged if he isn't posting on Instagram? Are you advocating for considerably more feminist activism resisting forces like his?
- __derek__ 4y agoHorrible ideas also spread when they are challenged. It's an example of the boomerang effect.[1] [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boomerang_effect_(psychology) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boomerang_effect_(psychology)
- namlem 4y agoCensorship and ostracism are themselves thousands of years old. Of course they work.
- dartharva 4y agoHorrible ideas may still spread if they're unchallenged but with a significantly slower pace if they are deplatformed from mainstream channels.
- mrcheesebreeze 4y agofalse, banning only pushes those banned closer together. this became clear as the right became more and more extreme as people had their views censored. this stupidity only mixes the normals with the crazies forcibly. people who like tate could soon end up moving to the same kinds of alternative sites that crazies jones now reside on. this is a dangerous road that ends with the people who feel beaten down eventually popularizing crazy ideas. its the irony of censorship that too much of it typically causes many of the problems it wanted to avoid. I don't want to see the outcome of the many impressionable teens who followed tate get exposed to harmful radical ideologies because they followed him to a less savory and crazier site!