5 ms·

Agreed, and to put it more simply - Shutting down a website that aims to kill people is not at all on the same level of sin as trying to kill people. To argue o

Agreed, and to put it more simply - Shutting down a website that aims to kill people is not at all on the same level of sin as trying to kill people. To argue otherwise is asinine and, frankly, offensively pretentious. Besides that, I've lost patience with the high-road wait-and-see attitide. Being "good" is not simply to condemn and look down upon the "bad". Being good requires intentional, decisive action to eliminate the world's evils. Anything less is indifference and virtue signaling. All that is required for evil to prevail is for "good" people to do nothing.

P5fRxh5kUvp2th 4y ago
------ When the Nazis came for the communists, I remained silent; I was not a communist. When they locked up the social democrats, I remained silent; I was not a social democrat. When they came for the trade unionists, I did not speak out; I was not a trade unionist. When they came for the Jews, I did not speak out; I was not a Jew. When they came for me, there was no one left to speak out. ------ People like you are too easily manipulated. And for what? If it's "just a website" then allowing it to exist isn't a big deal. But it's more than just a website in the same way that the vehicle used to run someone over is more than "just a car". And while I agree with your overall sentiment, shutting down a website is exact what you're arguing against. If you want to be "good" maybe you should step up and start getting these people thrown in jail for their harassment. But doing so removes the anonymity of the internet, which is a far greater evil. And that's what it boils down to. You take the good with the bad, just as you take the bad with the good. Giving everyone the ability to exist online protects both FB and Kiwifarms. To protect FB means to protect kiwifarms. Failing to protect kiwifarms means failing to protect FB. And if you're still not understanding, replace FB with "you" in the previous sentences. That Kiwifarms needs to be protected but FB doesn't is a circumstance of the current times, but you can't uncork that bottle once it's opened. Failing to protect Kiwifarms means when FB does need to be protected it will not be. So we tolerate Kiwifarms, not because we think it should exist, but because if we act on the impulse to remove it, it enables others to do the same and the argument is that NO ONE should be able to do that.
- nl 4y ago
  > When the Nazis came for the communists, This is a misquote. Niemöller was wise enough to know there were limits in what should be defended. https://encyclopedia.ushmm.org/content/en/article/martin-niemoeller-first-they-came-for-the-socialists https://encyclopedia.ushmm.org/content/en/article/martin-nie... > The paradox of tolerance states that if a society is tolerant without limit, its ability to be tolerant is eventually seized or destroyed by the intolerant. Karl Popper described it as the seemingly self-contradictory idea that in order to maintain a tolerant society, the society must retain the right to be intolerant of intolerance. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_tolerance https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_tolerance
  - P5fRxh5kUvp2th 4y ago
    The paradox of tolerance has nothing to do with the idea that we should protect all or we'll find ourselves unable to protect any. I can be intolerant of murder while also protecting a murderers right not to be murdered.
    - nl 4y ago
      The paradox of intolerance says we should not tolerate (or protect) intolerance. That doesn't mean we should allow murderers to be murdered. But nor should we protect the speech of someone who is using it to harass, intimidate and victimize people.
      - P5fRxh5kUvp2th 4y ago
        Yes we should for all the reasons already outlined. It isn't the popular speech that needs protecting.
        nl 4y ago
        So you disagree with the principle of the paradox of intolerance? To quote Karl Popper: 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. It seems to me that KiwiFarms is exactly the type of "movement preaching intolerance" and they themselves have "placed itself outside the law" (cite: Moon's response to the NZ request to take down the Christchurch shooter's live stream). So why should a tolerant society accept this intolerance? As Popper points out: [this does] "not imply, for instance, that we should always suppress the utterance of intolerant philosophies". But clearly KiwiFarms has gone beyond rational argument - they claim the right to harass people in the name of free speech.

P5fRxh5kUvp2th 4y ago

------ When the Nazis came for the communists, I remained silent; I was not a communist. When they locked up the social democrats, I remained silent; I was not a social democrat. When they came for the trade unionists, I did not speak out; I was not a trade unionist. When they came for the Jews, I did not speak out; I was not a Jew. When they came for me, there was no one left to speak out. ------ People like you are too easily manipulated. And for what? If it's "just a website" then allowing it to exist isn't a big deal. But it's more than just a website in the same way that the vehicle used to run someone over is more than "just a car". And while I agree with your overall sentiment, shutting down a website is exact what you're arguing against. If you want to be "good" maybe you should step up and start getting these people thrown in jail for their harassment. But doing so removes the anonymity of the internet, which is a far greater evil. And that's what it boils down to. You take the good with the bad, just as you take the bad with the good. Giving everyone the ability to exist online protects both FB and Kiwifarms. To protect FB means to protect kiwifarms. Failing to protect kiwifarms means failing to protect FB. And if you're still not understanding, replace FB with "you" in the previous sentences. That Kiwifarms needs to be protected but FB doesn't is a circumstance of the current times, but you can't uncork that bottle once it's opened. Failing to protect Kiwifarms means when FB does need to be protected it will not be. So we tolerate Kiwifarms, not because we think it should exist, but because if we act on the impulse to remove it, it enables others to do the same and the argument is that NO ONE should be able to do that.

nl 4y ago
> When the Nazis came for the communists, This is a misquote. Niemöller was wise enough to know there were limits in what should be defended. https://encyclopedia.ushmm.org/content/en/article/martin-niemoeller-first-they-came-for-the-socialists https://encyclopedia.ushmm.org/content/en/article/martin-nie... > The paradox of tolerance states that if a society is tolerant without limit, its ability to be tolerant is eventually seized or destroyed by the intolerant. Karl Popper described it as the seemingly self-contradictory idea that in order to maintain a tolerant society, the society must retain the right to be intolerant of intolerance. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_tolerance https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_tolerance
- P5fRxh5kUvp2th 4y ago
  The paradox of tolerance has nothing to do with the idea that we should protect all or we'll find ourselves unable to protect any. I can be intolerant of murder while also protecting a murderers right not to be murdered.
  - nl 4y ago
    The paradox of intolerance says we should not tolerate (or protect) intolerance. That doesn't mean we should allow murderers to be murdered. But nor should we protect the speech of someone who is using it to harass, intimidate and victimize people.
    - P5fRxh5kUvp2th 4y ago
      Yes we should for all the reasons already outlined. It isn't the popular speech that needs protecting.
      - nl 4y ago
        So you disagree with the principle of the paradox of intolerance? To quote Karl Popper: 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. It seems to me that KiwiFarms is exactly the type of "movement preaching intolerance" and they themselves have "placed itself outside the law" (cite: Moon's response to the NZ request to take down the Christchurch shooter's live stream). So why should a tolerant society accept this intolerance? As Popper points out: [this does] "not imply, for instance, that we should always suppress the utterance of intolerant philosophies". But clearly KiwiFarms has gone beyond rational argument - they claim the right to harass people in the name of free speech.