4 ms·

You just happen to be lucky enough to be within the very narrow overton window. Or at least a) believe what's being curated for you and b) never cared to look a

by dmix 4y ago

You just happen to be lucky enough to be within the very narrow overton window. Or at least a) believe what's being curated for you and b) never cared to look at what's not being said. You should hope that your views (or more accurately, their views) never stray from it and the information that a tiny group of people are controlling is good for the entire population. You could say just use another subreddit. But this isn't limited to one.

Teever 4y ago
Is the window really that narrow, or do you just happen to fall outside it/identify as having fallen outside of it for personal identity reasons?
- rhaksw 4y ago
  It's narrower than you might think. For example, I've recently been paying attention to the trans issue because some are saying that pro-trans groups are equating words with violence [1] [2]. Apparently the pro-trans groups have been saying that only 1% detransition, but there are youth speaking out saying that number is likely far greater [3] [4] [5]. It's hard for me to believe these are made up stories. And, it appears that such stories are currently only being told via conservative media. Please correct me if I am wrong. This is of interest to me because the US holds that words are not equal to violence, with the only exception being the emergency principle. According to Nadine Strossen, President of the ACLU from 1991-2008, the emergency test says speech may be punishable "if, in context, it directly causes specific imminent serious harm." [6] If groups are successfully convincing people otherwise, then it may mean we are forgetting what free speech is. Free speech, the US version anyway, draws the line at violence, not words. [1] https://archive.ph/1NeiV#selection-1513.7-1513.57 https://archive.ph/1NeiV#selection-1513.7-1513.57 [2] https://corinnacohn.substack.com/p/the-world-should-not-need-kiwi-farms https://corinnacohn.substack.com/p/the-world-should-not-need... [3] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3tQr6WZXHSQ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3tQr6WZXHSQ [4] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OdSKBVHrizo https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OdSKBVHrizo [5] https://youtu.be/STE1pmCjULQ?t=2047 https://youtu.be/STE1pmCjULQ?t=2047 [6] https://books.google.com/books?&hl=en&id=whBQDwAAQBAJ&q=in+context%2C+it+directly+causes+specific+imminent+serious+harm https://books.google.com/books?&hl=en&id=whBQDwAAQBAJ&q=in+c...
  - hhmc 4y ago
    That's a _VERY_ selective set of sources ([3][4][5]), which you are in bad faith using a representation of the "youth"
    - rhaksw 4y ago
      "There are youth speaking out" should not be taken to mean "all youth". It means "some youth". It's another point of view on an issue that I'd only previously seen presented from one perspective. That's why I found it to be so interesting. I was shocked to hear it because I had no prior understanding that anything untoward was going on. Question for you, what do you think about Keira Bell's story?
      - hhmc 4y ago
        Views are a currency, and not one I wish to give to GBnews.
        rhaksw 4y ago
        I'm sure you can find her story elsewhere.
    - dmix 4y ago
      'Bad faith' is the modern authoritarian's favourite excuse for censorship or dismissing comments. Just like 'problematic' it's a vague enough term that it can be easily abused ('dog whistle' and 'gaslighting' are other favourites). You don't have to openly challenge the source material, just question the motives for even asking the question. Perfect for when you don't have the balls to directly call what the person is saying wrong or bad. Ad hominem 101.
      - hhmc 4y ago
        I hope the irony of your comment isn’t lost on you
  - adbachman 4y ago
- Firmwarrior 4y ago
  To be fair, tolerating transgender people's existence at all used to fall outside the Overton window. Having a small cabal of unimpeachable shadow lords ruling all discourse with an iron fist doesn't seem healthy for society to me. Particularly when there's some circumstantial evidence that Ghislaine Maxwell used to be one of those mods: https://old.reddit.com/r/TopMindsOfReddit/comments/rrldd9/top_reddit_minds_still_claiming_ghislaine_maxwell/ https://old.reddit.com/r/TopMindsOfReddit/comments/rrldd9/to... (skeptical link, but even here you can see that it's plausible)
mariusor 4y ago
I find it a little sad that in order to disagree with me you have to be mean about it. There are plenty of reasons why a subreddit like r/science is fine for people, not just the fact that they have a "very narrow Overton window". Maybe it's because we understand that this particular subreddit does not conform to the usual agora of discussion that reddit is known for and just shows a list of maybe interesting science papers/articles and clarifications on them from people in the domain. I may disagree with some of the ideas put forward but I can be an adult about it and not jump to the conclusion that there's a cabal of "big science" that is trying to brainwash me.
- rhaksw 4y ago
  > I find it a little sad that in order to disagree with me you have to be mean about it. I didn't find what was written to be mean. Eleanor Roosevelt said, "No one can make you feel inferior without your consent." If you feel sad, that's fine, I just want to point out that this is a choice we all make. Sometimes there is wide agreement on what constitutes offense, and we use this to justify the secret removal of other people's content. But offense is inherently subjective, and such secretive removals rob us of chances to sharpen our counter speech. Rather than trying to make perceived hateful conversations secretly disappear, I think we are better off allowing each other to prepare counter arguments to offensive speech.
- dmix 4y ago
  Being mean? Jeez, I was hardly being mean. Being easily offended and being pro-censorship are two intersecting circles on the venn diagram.

by dmix 4y ago

Teever 4y ago

Is the window really that narrow, or do you just happen to fall outside it/identify as having fallen outside of it for personal identity reasons?

rhaksw 4y ago
It's narrower than you might think. For example, I've recently been paying attention to the trans issue because some are saying that pro-trans groups are equating words with violence [1] [2]. Apparently the pro-trans groups have been saying that only 1% detransition, but there are youth speaking out saying that number is likely far greater [3] [4] [5]. It's hard for me to believe these are made up stories. And, it appears that such stories are currently only being told via conservative media. Please correct me if I am wrong. This is of interest to me because the US holds that words are not equal to violence, with the only exception being the emergency principle. According to Nadine Strossen, President of the ACLU from 1991-2008, the emergency test says speech may be punishable "if, in context, it directly causes specific imminent serious harm." [6] If groups are successfully convincing people otherwise, then it may mean we are forgetting what free speech is. Free speech, the US version anyway, draws the line at violence, not words. [1] https://archive.ph/1NeiV#selection-1513.7-1513.57 https://archive.ph/1NeiV#selection-1513.7-1513.57 [2] https://corinnacohn.substack.com/p/the-world-should-not-need-kiwi-farms https://corinnacohn.substack.com/p/the-world-should-not-need... [3] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3tQr6WZXHSQ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3tQr6WZXHSQ [4] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OdSKBVHrizo https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OdSKBVHrizo [5] https://youtu.be/STE1pmCjULQ?t=2047 https://youtu.be/STE1pmCjULQ?t=2047 [6] https://books.google.com/books?&hl=en&id=whBQDwAAQBAJ&q=in+context%2C+it+directly+causes+specific+imminent+serious+harm https://books.google.com/books?&hl=en&id=whBQDwAAQBAJ&q=in+c...
- hhmc 4y ago
  That's a _VERY_ selective set of sources ([3][4][5]), which you are in bad faith using a representation of the "youth"
  - rhaksw 4y ago
    "There are youth speaking out" should not be taken to mean "all youth". It means "some youth". It's another point of view on an issue that I'd only previously seen presented from one perspective. That's why I found it to be so interesting. I was shocked to hear it because I had no prior understanding that anything untoward was going on. Question for you, what do you think about Keira Bell's story?
    - hhmc 4y ago
      Views are a currency, and not one I wish to give to GBnews.
      - rhaksw 4y ago
        I'm sure you can find her story elsewhere.
  - dmix 4y ago
    'Bad faith' is the modern authoritarian's favourite excuse for censorship or dismissing comments. Just like 'problematic' it's a vague enough term that it can be easily abused ('dog whistle' and 'gaslighting' are other favourites). You don't have to openly challenge the source material, just question the motives for even asking the question. Perfect for when you don't have the balls to directly call what the person is saying wrong or bad. Ad hominem 101.
    - hhmc 4y ago
      I hope the irony of your comment isn’t lost on you
- adbachman 4y ago
Firmwarrior 4y ago
To be fair, tolerating transgender people's existence at all used to fall outside the Overton window. Having a small cabal of unimpeachable shadow lords ruling all discourse with an iron fist doesn't seem healthy for society to me. Particularly when there's some circumstantial evidence that Ghislaine Maxwell used to be one of those mods: https://old.reddit.com/r/TopMindsOfReddit/comments/rrldd9/top_reddit_minds_still_claiming_ghislaine_maxwell/ https://old.reddit.com/r/TopMindsOfReddit/comments/rrldd9/to... (skeptical link, but even here you can see that it's plausible)

mariusor 4y ago

I find it a little sad that in order to disagree with me you have to be mean about it. There are plenty of reasons why a subreddit like r/science is fine for people, not just the fact that they have a "very narrow Overton window". Maybe it's because we understand that this particular subreddit does not conform to the usual agora of discussion that reddit is known for and just shows a list of maybe interesting science papers/articles and clarifications on them from people in the domain. I may disagree with some of the ideas put forward but I can be an adult about it and not jump to the conclusion that there's a cabal of "big science" that is trying to brainwash me.

rhaksw 4y ago
> I find it a little sad that in order to disagree with me you have to be mean about it. I didn't find what was written to be mean. Eleanor Roosevelt said, "No one can make you feel inferior without your consent." If you feel sad, that's fine, I just want to point out that this is a choice we all make. Sometimes there is wide agreement on what constitutes offense, and we use this to justify the secret removal of other people's content. But offense is inherently subjective, and such secretive removals rob us of chances to sharpen our counter speech. Rather than trying to make perceived hateful conversations secretly disappear, I think we are better off allowing each other to prepare counter arguments to offensive speech.
dmix 4y ago
Being mean? Jeez, I was hardly being mean. Being easily offended and being pro-censorship are two intersecting circles on the venn diagram.