9 ms·

- "and I desperately do not want further injury or violence to occur spurned by incorrect speech on the facts of reality" How is that any different from violen

• nonethewiser 4y ago
  I wonder which model the federal government prefers.
  • emeraldd 4y ago
    Realistically, the federal government (and by definition any government) is made up of people with their own self-interests. They will favor the style of "censorship" that keeps them in power.
• esrauch 4y ago
  Violence inspired by disinformation is so drastically different than violence inspired by correct information though. If a pizza parlor was actually a pedo ring or a politician was actually sacrificing babies (both real examples of widely spread and believed misinfo right now) the violence induced against the perpetrators would be vigilantism but still considered morally defensible to most people due to failure to take action from the authorities. It seem perfectly sensible to say that we apparently have a big problem due to people literally shooting up pizza parlors over disinformation, and that if someone was shooting up a pizza parlor over correct information the situation would be different and warrant different responses.
  • vxNsr 4y ago
    > It seem perfectly sensible to say that we apparently have a big problem due to people literally shooting up pizza parlors over disinformation This is a perfect example of why this is a bad idea. Thank you for being the example. No one shot up a pizza parlor due to disinformation. A single concerned citizen brought a gun to a pizza shot to ascertain if there was a pedo ring being operated in it, after confirming there was not, he handed over his gun and not a single shot was fired. But you honestly believe that to be the case, either because it benefits your argument or because someone lied to you or because you misinterpreted something you read. But you now believe this is the truth and everyone who disagrees with that "truth" should be censored.
    • singleshot_ 4y ago
      > not a single shot was fired This is a perfect example of disinformation. According to a contemporaneous report by the New York Times, the “concerned citizen” (which of course is a strange thing to call a criminal, but leaving that aside) illegally discharged an AR platform rifle inside the building, in order to destroy a lock. Think about why a person would want you to believe that the shooter’s actions were perfectly normal or why they would want you to believe you misremembered the event.
    • gaganyaan 4y ago
      What? There were shots fired: > On December 4, 2016, Edgar Maddison Welch, a 28-year-old man from Salisbury, North Carolina, arrived at Comet Ping Pong and fired three shots from an AR-15 style rifle that struck the restaurant's walls, a desk, and a door. There's a whole section on Wikipedia: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pizzagate_conspiracy_theory https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pizzagate_conspiracy_theory Your response is exactly why people are getting away with proposing draconian measures like this. You need to stop ingesting and spreading disinformation.
    • etchalon 4y ago
      Your comment is such a perfect example of the ouroboros of misinformation, it's hard to believe it exists.
    • esrauch 4y ago
      I don't understand your point; you think it's just fine that people deliberately slandered and lied about a pizza place to the extent that someone believed it, went in with an AR and fired rounds and that's all fine because no one died? Surely even if you think that was fine, it would have been better than fine if the guy did that same thing to a pizzeria actually was a pedo ring? My comment was only saying that violence induced by outright lies has a relevant difference than violence which is a reaction to things that actually happened. Those seem clearly different even if you think censorship is not a viable or correct solution to "violence induced by misinfo".
      • tekknik 4y ago
  • arminiusreturns 4y ago
    Go read about the Franklin scandal, or the Dutroux scandal before you spout things you are sure aren't happening (in particular the X-witness reports). Elm house, Kinkora in UK. Epstein-Maxwell-Wexner-Mossad, etc, need I go on? I propose many people pretending to be arbiters of truth refuse to acklowledge facts and citations before them. The mainstream media inspires wars... they don't get held to account do they? Why the sudden focus on arbitrary standards and funny how they always get applied to those that vary outside the approved overton window.
    • esrauch 4y ago
      Obviously pedophilia exists in the world. There obviously should be authorities whose job it is to investigate such things. People absolutely need to be able raise suspicions to authorities for due investigation. Pizzagate was not that: half the people repeating it were doing it as a meme, were in on the joke. People spread it even knowing it is not true. I don't know what your point about journalists are: it's literally journalists deliberately spreading damaging misinfo like Alex Jones that need to be held accountable here. The DHS isn't able to go after grandma at Thanksgiving dinner for saying Clinton drinks baby blood.
      • tekknik 4y ago
        > I don't know what your point about journalists are: it's literally journalists deliberately spreading damaging misinfo like Alex Jones that need to be held accountable here. The DHS isn't able to go after grandma at Thanksgiving dinner for saying Clinton drinks baby blood. But how come only the right needs to stop misinformation? Not a day goes by that an article from the left MSM comes out spouting wildly incorrect information (for instance, recently with the SIG SCX SPEAR). The left has increased division and hate in this country and now we’re seeing the result.
  • tekknik 4y ago
    > and that if someone was shooting up a pizza parlor over correct information the situation would be different and warrant different responses. Wow this is scary, and kinda borderline needs to be reported to the FBI. Why is shooting up a pizza parlor acceptable when the information is “correct”? This is cult behavior.
    • esrauch 4y ago
      I did not say it is "correct" to shoot up a pizza parlor. I am saying that scenario of "people knowingly lie, other people are misled, other people cause violence" is an even worse situation for society than "people know the truth, people cause violence". The second one is already horrible, the first one is especially horrible. I can empathize with the people who are deceived. The person who attacked Pelosi has now had his life ruined by lies; the lies induced him to commit violence against an innocent person. That's a thing that is sad on top of Mr. Pelosi who was almost murdered thanks to the lies. It is a pretty sad situation that people lying without consequences resulted in that outcome for both of them. If he knew the truth and committed the crime then either 1) it was justified vigilantism or 2) it was a wrong action that he did of his own volition. Either way is is less bad than an wrong action that he was tricked into.
      • tekknik 4y ago
        Good. But how come you used an example from the left? How come you weren’t neutral and used an example from both sides? Now you looked biased and are guilty of spreading the same misinformation you’re claiming was spread in the Pelosi instance. You will cause violence against republicans with your comments, so you are now just as guilty. Furthermore, speaking of misinformation, Pelosi’s attacker was a hardcore liberal, then suddenly became a hardcore Trumpist? And the evidence supporting this was viewed by a handful of police officers and we just have to trust them that someone can make this radical of a change from receiving misinformation? Parts of this story still don’t add up, and looks very convenient to happen right now before midterms. On top of an 82 year old surviving a hammer attack.
  • raxxorraxor 4y ago
    It is never morally defensible if you do not have conclusive evidence. Of course what would be considered conclusive is subjective, but that is a matter of education as there can be objective standards. These will never be approached by vigilantism though.
• drtz 4y ago
  Do you truly see no difference between a lie that leads to someone getting harmed and a truth that leads to the same outcome? Your argument seems disingenuous. > Following the logic you're laying out, I don't think it's the defense of truth you're advocating for; it's social harmony and stability. Basically the ideals favored in the Chinese model -- which censors true things and false things equally, depending on their social impact. This is a straw man. The original comment made no such argument. From the comment you're responding to: > ... I desperately do not want further injury or violence to occur spurned by incorrect speech on the facts of reality.
  • GoblinSlayer 4y ago
    Some religious people say if there's no god, they will go kill all people. Is such truth worth the price?
    • ben_w 4y ago
      If they are sincere, it's very useful to allow them to identify themselves by publicly announcing this in advance. Much easier to stop them before they get going if you know who they are.
    • Arrath 4y ago
      Yes? Civil society cannot allow itself to be held hostage by the threats of an unhinged fringe.
    • YeahNO 4y ago
      If they have to believe in a mythical deity that dispenses "justice" post-death in order to quell their urges to commit murder, they probably should be treated for mental illness or otherwise removed from society, as they are a ticking time bomb.
    • tekknik 4y ago
      There needs to be some evidence for this. You can’t just claim some religious people want to kill everybody. Link please or this is a blatant lie.
  • 4y ago
• usernomdeguerre 4y ago
  I think this is an insightful comment, but i'm not sure its merely the Chinese model at play. It's also the purpose of courts and lawmaking. So that the harmony and stability of society can continue; and the truth of the matter can be adjudicated (defense or offense) in a thorough and thoughtful manner. Why should we leave this battle to be taken up in the public square and threads like this?
  • buscoquadnary 4y ago
    Truth is truth, the defining feature of truth is it's independence of any view point. To suggest it can be adjudicated is to imply that there is no longer truth and only the power of the weak over the strong.
    • usernomdeguerre 4y ago
      Truth may be truth, but marshaling it out of the past and into the present courtroom is a lossy operation no matter what we philosophically believe.
• pfisherman 4y ago
  I think the word / concept you are looking for is justice. Prudent actions are rooted in truth. Where there is not prudence there is no justice. Strength and action in the absence of justice is tyranny.
• didibus 4y ago
  There's a problem of adversarial attack right now. An adversarial person can flood people with rethoric of issues, corruption, crime, against all established political powers and institutions, and position themselves as the solution to all those ilks. They can do that by flooding the public square of free opinions (the internet), with disinformation, fake data, lies of omissions, lack of contextualization, attacking all others personally, ridiculing them, etc. All they have to do is put doubt in people's mind, keep the focus on others, and appeal to emotions of more and more people slowly. They can do that because they are free to do it. Then they can gain the political power from it, and slowly replace institutional power with loyalists working for them. Once they've managed to get enough loyalist in place through this method, they can remove the right to free speech and take over as a fascist or dictator, or other more authoritarian measures. Then they can continue the same speech they've always been pushing as propaganda, even denying the removal, bans, jailing, and all that of their opposition, and voila. This is a pretty straightforward playbook. It's played out many times before. You can call it a soft-coup: > populists who seek the centralization of power but do so under the pretense of improving democracy At least to me, it's very obvious our system is susceptible to this kind of adversarial attack. I don't know the solution, you don't want to prevent this attack but enable another one in doing so, but it's a huge threat vector and I'd hope we recognize it and do something to mitigate it.
  • GoblinSlayer 4y ago
    I'm afraid entire political system runs on populism. It gives them free pass to any idea they want to push.
  • JacobThreeThree 4y ago
    >There's a problem of adversarial attack right now. >An adversarial person can flood people with rethoric of issues, corruption, crime, against all established political powers and institutions, and position themselves as the solution to all those ilks. Appealing to emotions and attempting to label your opponents as corrupt and soft on crime is as old as politics itself. Convincing people to vote for you is not a soft-coup. The platforms should be the ones who should decide how their algorithms promote information and shouldn't be pressured or controlled by whoever the current party is in power at that moment. The benchmark should be - would you want a Trump DHS with the power to change their censorship policies however they liked? If online speech should be regulated by the government, pass legislation, don't backdoor it in a risky and unilateral manner through law enforcement.
• wwweston 4y ago
  Violence is better avoided. Most people also believe violence is situationally justified in service of other values, and this is an arena in which the truth of the situation matters very much. This is why we have court proceedings where we aspire to reach conclusions of correct facts before we allow the state to apply law and sentencing that may do violence to property, liberty, or person. The flip side is much as Voltaire is supposed to have said: "Truly, whoever is able to make you absurd is able to make you unjust" or "Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities." Violence inspired by incorrect facts is violence automatically out of accord with worthwhile values.