3 ms·

Everyone takes shortcuts these days so by Godwin's law directly calling the other person on the internet with which you disagree a nazi is peak optimization /s

by noxer 4y ago

Everyone takes shortcuts these days so by Godwin's law directly calling the other person on the internet with which you disagree a nazi is peak optimization /s On a serious note I think the problem is actually the heavy moderation and algorithmic bubble creation. Then you had certain famous and controversial people who operated above all bubbles and the different bubble started clashing. The only way I see to fix this is if the "middle" is one bubble. And no, that's not a middle ground fallacy, I dont think the middle position is the correct one but rather that a strong middle bubble is required to separate the majority from extremist bubbles. Unfortunately a middle bubble required people to be tolerant. But many people lost the concept of disagreeing but supporting that someone should be able voice their opinion anyway. Musk actually understand this so I'm not overly optimistic but I'm curious to see what he will do.

pjc50 4y ago
> disagreeing but supporting that someone should be able voice their opinion anyway It's not just "disagreement" but the death threats, slurs, allegations of "grooming", racism, libel, and simple fraud (especially involving cryptocurrency). Heck, Musk himself posted (and deleted shortly afterwards) libel about Pete Pelosi.
- noxer 4y ago
  If it isn't a crime or spam then it is in fact disagreement. There is no inherent different from calling someone a "racist" or "nazi" to calling someone a "groomer". On Twitter these "slurs" are used by different sides (bubbles) but other than that there is no difference. It might be a baseless allegation or there could be more to it but either way it is clearly an opinion and disagreeing is fine no need to prevent anyone from voicing it. >Musk himself posted (and deleted shortly afterwards) libel about Pete Pelosi. I would assume he was being sarcastic by posting an obvious "whack source" with a silly rather obvious made up story. But it went over peoples head so he removed it. (But that is just my interpretation) But whatever it was, why does it bother you? What exactly is so horrible about posting something "wrong" and deleting it? What is so hard about the concept of allowing people to be wrong about things? Where does the "entitlement" to demand people to get everything right come from? You don't apply this standard to yourself don't you? And if you are wrong about something would you rather want people to tell you/debunk your claim or would you want your "wrong think" to just be removed? I've yet to see that horrible combination of letters that is too dangerous to face the scrutiny of people and calling it out. Lame slurs certainly dont pose any threat to a stable individual and I dont think we should adapt to the unstable that just make everyone more and more intolerant.
  - pjc50 4y ago
    > What is so hard about the concept of allowing people to be wrong about things? People act on that basis? If all this stuff was totally disconnected from the real world, then sure yeah whatever, but it isn't. The point is that Pete Pelosi was attacked by a terrorist who'd be radicalized by wrong information. The "groomer" stuff worries me because I know enough queer people who are now more likely to face real, physical violence as a result. But it's not just twitter. Some of this stuff is in "mainstream" media and politics now. I'm only OK with you being wrong about things if you're willing to sit in an inaction bubble and do nothing which can affect me, including radicalizing others to your cause who will do things.
    - noxer 4y ago
      I'm not responsible for people acting on whatever basis they do unless I actively blackmail or incite them to do something. >The point is that Pete Pelosi was attacked by a terrorist who'd be radicalized by wrong information. Where exactly is the point in this? Clearly this happen before Musk's post about it so where exactly is the connection? >The "groomer" stuff worries me... I could tell by reading your post but I dont see any argument contrary to what I said. Its just another insult/not nice thing to say/a lie/etc. but there is nothing special about it. It might "worry" or rather "bothers" you more that other words but that is purely subjective, we all have some kind of personal ranking of "slurs". But what matters is that I would not want the words on the top of my list banned. Not even if used against me. >... and do nothing which can affect me... Then we could not have this discussion because clearly it will affects you. I can try to not affect you negative but it might not work and trying is complete voluntary, its up to you to not participate in this discussion if you think I'm not interested in a civil rational exchange of thoughts. You can not demand from me or from anyone to limit their speech to what does not affect you negative. That is impossible to practice. What others do is even more outside my control. I am not responsible for other peoples action (with certain limitation see first sentence). And I'm not going to limit my speech or want anyone else to limit their speech as a "preventive action" to stop a hypothetical person doing something wrong. That is entirely backwards, the open dialog, scrutiny and tolerance is what should make people not becoming extremists. Preventing people from having their views challenged isn't going to help anyone in the long run.
joe_the_user 4y ago
On a serious note I think the problem is actually the heavy moderation I think the problem is crude filtering falsely labeled moderation. What you'd want is a moderator who demands decent quality arguments on the topic at hand. What you have is just removal of everyone not agreeing with a given viewpoint and allowing intemperate advocates of the given viewpoint to make the position garbage.
- MockObject 4y ago
  > What you'd want is a moderator who demands decent quality arguments on the topic at hand. In 280 characters?
  - xboxnolifes 4y ago
    Not typing bad arguments takes fewer characters than having them.

by noxer 4y ago

pjc50 4y ago

> disagreeing but supporting that someone should be able voice their opinion anyway It's not just "disagreement" but the death threats, slurs, allegations of "grooming", racism, libel, and simple fraud (especially involving cryptocurrency). Heck, Musk himself posted (and deleted shortly afterwards) libel about Pete Pelosi.

noxer 4y ago
If it isn't a crime or spam then it is in fact disagreement. There is no inherent different from calling someone a "racist" or "nazi" to calling someone a "groomer". On Twitter these "slurs" are used by different sides (bubbles) but other than that there is no difference. It might be a baseless allegation or there could be more to it but either way it is clearly an opinion and disagreeing is fine no need to prevent anyone from voicing it. >Musk himself posted (and deleted shortly afterwards) libel about Pete Pelosi. I would assume he was being sarcastic by posting an obvious "whack source" with a silly rather obvious made up story. But it went over peoples head so he removed it. (But that is just my interpretation) But whatever it was, why does it bother you? What exactly is so horrible about posting something "wrong" and deleting it? What is so hard about the concept of allowing people to be wrong about things? Where does the "entitlement" to demand people to get everything right come from? You don't apply this standard to yourself don't you? And if you are wrong about something would you rather want people to tell you/debunk your claim or would you want your "wrong think" to just be removed? I've yet to see that horrible combination of letters that is too dangerous to face the scrutiny of people and calling it out. Lame slurs certainly dont pose any threat to a stable individual and I dont think we should adapt to the unstable that just make everyone more and more intolerant.
- pjc50 4y ago
  > What is so hard about the concept of allowing people to be wrong about things? People act on that basis? If all this stuff was totally disconnected from the real world, then sure yeah whatever, but it isn't. The point is that Pete Pelosi was attacked by a terrorist who'd be radicalized by wrong information. The "groomer" stuff worries me because I know enough queer people who are now more likely to face real, physical violence as a result. But it's not just twitter. Some of this stuff is in "mainstream" media and politics now. I'm only OK with you being wrong about things if you're willing to sit in an inaction bubble and do nothing which can affect me, including radicalizing others to your cause who will do things.
  - noxer 4y ago
    I'm not responsible for people acting on whatever basis they do unless I actively blackmail or incite them to do something. >The point is that Pete Pelosi was attacked by a terrorist who'd be radicalized by wrong information. Where exactly is the point in this? Clearly this happen before Musk's post about it so where exactly is the connection? >The "groomer" stuff worries me... I could tell by reading your post but I dont see any argument contrary to what I said. Its just another insult/not nice thing to say/a lie/etc. but there is nothing special about it. It might "worry" or rather "bothers" you more that other words but that is purely subjective, we all have some kind of personal ranking of "slurs". But what matters is that I would not want the words on the top of my list banned. Not even if used against me. >... and do nothing which can affect me... Then we could not have this discussion because clearly it will affects you. I can try to not affect you negative but it might not work and trying is complete voluntary, its up to you to not participate in this discussion if you think I'm not interested in a civil rational exchange of thoughts. You can not demand from me or from anyone to limit their speech to what does not affect you negative. That is impossible to practice. What others do is even more outside my control. I am not responsible for other peoples action (with certain limitation see first sentence). And I'm not going to limit my speech or want anyone else to limit their speech as a "preventive action" to stop a hypothetical person doing something wrong. That is entirely backwards, the open dialog, scrutiny and tolerance is what should make people not becoming extremists. Preventing people from having their views challenged isn't going to help anyone in the long run.

joe_the_user 4y ago

On a serious note I think the problem is actually the heavy moderation I think the problem is crude filtering falsely labeled moderation. What you'd want is a moderator who demands decent quality arguments on the topic at hand. What you have is just removal of everyone not agreeing with a given viewpoint and allowing intemperate advocates of the given viewpoint to make the position garbage.

MockObject 4y ago
> What you'd want is a moderator who demands decent quality arguments on the topic at hand. In 280 characters?
- xboxnolifes 4y ago
  Not typing bad arguments takes fewer characters than having them.