5 ms·

Agreed, as a society we need to increase our resilience to opinions we may find uncomfortable.

by indy 4y ago

ryandrake 4y ago
We've totally abandoned the concept of "It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it."
- eropple 4y ago
  I'm fairly certain that's untrue. There is, however, a fairly pernicious aspect of the social discourse that really would like to conflate "entertaining it, rejecting it soundly, and not repeatedly entertaining it for the same pretty-tired arguments" with never entertaining the thought at all. The sea-lion cartoon has stuck around for a reason.
  - ryandrake 4y ago
    Sea-lioning is one example of argument in bad faith. I wasn't talking about that. I'm talking about educated people's willingness and ability to play gracefully with ideas--as Oscar Wilde put it. I think as a culture, we're losing this ability. Bans and cancellation based on clumsy, blunt-force word matching are accelerating this loss. This gracefulness is already pretty much totally gone from the Internet, if it ever existed here.
  - nomel 4y ago
    > repeatedly entertaining It can appear this way, on the internet, but it could be that the individuals asking the question are entertaining it for the first time. I know this is what happened to me, with unrelated topics. You can’t reason with the mob. They aren’t interested.
    - mrguyorama 4y ago
      If you aren't willing to go take the time to educate yourself on the topic (there are ample resources to do so) then it is not our responsibility to educate you about trans people. Trans people are a rarity, so they tend to have to field the same like 20 questions a million times over. They just want to live their fucking lives, not answer truly ignorant questions about their genitalia from people who didn't put in even an ounce of effort to understand.
      - rittle 4y ago
        Attitudes like this are why people will listen to the TERFs instead, as they're always willing to talk about trans-identifying males are eradicating female-only spaces, and so on.
        Ralfp 4y ago
        Well ofcourse. One just wants to live their life while other is activist promothing their case.
        rittle 4y ago
        [flagged]
      - deleted 4y ago
        [deleted]
- barbariangrunge 4y ago
  That’s an awful lot of nuance to convey in a Twitter post or a twitch chat or most forum replies. The mediums of our discourse have made complex thoughts hard to communicate
- alex_sf 4y ago
  Of course, because plenty of thoughts, when critically examined, are correct but socially unacceptable. When someone reaches the conclusion that a socially unacceptable thought is correct, the vast majority will try to stop thinking about any at all.
- Ralfp 4y ago
  A mark of educated mind is also in abilty to see the consequence of their words. Eg. suggesting oppressed group struggling with validating their own existence and massive suicide rates coming from that struggle to entertain a though that validy is not there may not be what an educated mind would do.
snet0 4y ago
While I agree with this in the abstract, this particular case is that of a private company refusing hosting to content that it (or, perhaps, its advertisers) does not want their name attached to. It'd be nice if we didn't have this situation, e.g. income not being tied directly to advertisers -> indirectly to LCD of opinion. I don't know if you were implying that Twitch ought not remove this content, but I just feel like sometimes the conversation gets taken to an abstract space, the conclusions of which then get applied to concrete space e.g. Twitch. It's important to recognise the rights we give private companies to decide what they provide airtime to.
- StanislavPetrov 4y ago
  >this particular case is that of a private company refusing hosting to content I believe this argument holds water on some level, when it regards a small private company, but it is much less compelling when that "private company" is Amazon (who owns Twitch), Google, Twitter, Facebook or another behemoth with hundreds of millions of users. At that point, it becomes a very chilling attack on free speech, which is why I think that many big tech platforms should be designated at common carriers.
  - cmilton 4y ago
    Correct. What if the private company is Visa or Mastercard? What if it is your only ISP?
    - snet0 4y ago
      It's slightly different in that those are basically utility companies at this point, but there's definitely an argument to be made that certain levels of social media ubiquity ought to qualify them as a utility, since you lose so much through not being able to interact with them.
  - snet0 4y ago
    Yeah I'm definitely sympathetic to this, and I think the next decade will determine how we proceed with these cases. It does feel like, while they're all private companies, if a random individual was to be banned from all social media platforms, their life really cannot function at some level in a lot of modern societies, so we ought to treat these companies differently. When the companies are generating revenue through selling advertisements, and the advertisers decide "yeah we actually don't want to buy a pre-roll on the stream where the guy is making racist comments", it's another level of difficulty to navigate. Should these companies be required to host someone's content at a loss, given that they have some way for advertisers to "block" certain content types from being associated with their brands?
PartiallyTyped 4y ago
As a society we shouldn't tolerate the intolerant, those who seek every excuse to vilify and target minorities. FYI, certain prominent political leaders said they’d outlaw certain minorities and make the lives of people living hell. Personally i am not fond of seeing friends and family suffer at the hand of fascists. @Dang, since when is paraphrasing Popper and restating the statements of people without a sliver of modification or strawmans worth flagging? Don't you think there is a problem with abuse here?
- thatswrong0 4y ago
  The problem I'm seeing is that with some regularity, people are being designated as "intolerant" for simply asking questions, deviating slightly from the most up-to-date acceptable opinion, or just not keeping up with what is the correct opinion to have now. Applying nuance and assuming that others _might_ have good intentions isn't really in vogue.
  - PartiallyTyped 4y ago
    JAQing off and asking questions to learn and understand are two truly different things. Misrepresenting positions and arguments to a rabid “fanbase” is not asking questions. It’s time the charades stop and the fascists drop the pretences, oh wait their supreme leader has PUBLICLY said he will ensure that trans people will be outlawed. No amount of science and evidence is ever enough for these people either. Transsexualism is not a new thing and to claim it is is either wilfully ignorant when you act as a host and don’t do due diligence, or maliciously intentional. I am not asking people to have correct opinions, i am asking that they listen to those who did the science and the research, i am asking that they talk to actual trans people about their experiences. Perhaps asking for some empathy (not sympathy) as a fellow human is already too much.
    - nomel 4y ago
      The problem is, there’s no way for you to know which type of person it is until you’ve talked with them for a bit. From what I’ve seen, people immediately condemn anyone not in lockstep, and never find out, leaving a very confused, interested person, who only experiences irrational, negative, interactions.
saynay 4y ago
Such as Twitch's opinion that this joke was a violation of their TOS, and thus deserving of a temp ban? That opinion seems to be making a lot of people here pretty uncomfortable.
- flangola7 4y ago
  A common defining attribute of harmful people like bigots is an inability to self reflect. It's akin to a thief being mad a court ordered them to turn money over to the victim. "When I take money it's wrong, but when they take it from me it's ok. People need to be comfortable with money transfers [opinions] they don't like." Which no, we don't. We will continue to take efforts to prevent and mitigate a harmful person's ability to cause harm. This is obvious to any reasonable person but unfortunately not to the chronic thief. You cannot win over him with argument, only with unilateral action such as garnishing his bank accounts for restitution and making theft culturally unacceptable.
  - odessacubbage 4y ago
    >We will continue to take efforts to prevent and mitigate a harmful person's ability to cause harm. the channel in question is literally a bot that strings together semi-coherent sentences from chat gpt with little to no object permanence. there is no person or harmful intent to mitigate here, it is just a bunch of words in a blender.
    - flangola7 4y ago
      I'm not talking about the bot, I'm talking about all the people reacting negatively to its temporary ban.
ihateyouall123 4y ago
[flagged]

Agreed, as a society we need to increase our resilience to opinions we may find uncomfortable.

by indy 4y ago

Agreed, as a society we need to increase our resilience to opinions we may find uncomfortable.

We've totally abandoned the concept of "It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it."

eropple 4y ago
I'm fairly certain that's untrue. There is, however, a fairly pernicious aspect of the social discourse that really would like to conflate "entertaining it, rejecting it soundly, and not repeatedly entertaining it for the same pretty-tired arguments" with never entertaining the thought at all. The sea-lion cartoon has stuck around for a reason.
- ryandrake 4y ago
  Sea-lioning is one example of argument in bad faith. I wasn't talking about that. I'm talking about educated people's willingness and ability to play gracefully with ideas--as Oscar Wilde put it. I think as a culture, we're losing this ability. Bans and cancellation based on clumsy, blunt-force word matching are accelerating this loss. This gracefulness is already pretty much totally gone from the Internet, if it ever existed here.
- nomel 4y ago
  > repeatedly entertaining It can appear this way, on the internet, but it could be that the individuals asking the question are entertaining it for the first time. I know this is what happened to me, with unrelated topics. You can’t reason with the mob. They aren’t interested.
  - mrguyorama 4y ago
    If you aren't willing to go take the time to educate yourself on the topic (there are ample resources to do so) then it is not our responsibility to educate you about trans people. Trans people are a rarity, so they tend to have to field the same like 20 questions a million times over. They just want to live their fucking lives, not answer truly ignorant questions about their genitalia from people who didn't put in even an ounce of effort to understand.
    - rittle 4y ago
      Attitudes like this are why people will listen to the TERFs instead, as they're always willing to talk about trans-identifying males are eradicating female-only spaces, and so on.
      - Ralfp 4y ago
        Well ofcourse. One just wants to live their life while other is activist promothing their case.
        rittle 4y ago
        [flagged]
    - deleted 4y ago
      [deleted]
barbariangrunge 4y ago
That’s an awful lot of nuance to convey in a Twitter post or a twitch chat or most forum replies. The mediums of our discourse have made complex thoughts hard to communicate
alex_sf 4y ago
Of course, because plenty of thoughts, when critically examined, are correct but socially unacceptable. When someone reaches the conclusion that a socially unacceptable thought is correct, the vast majority will try to stop thinking about any at all.
Ralfp 4y ago
A mark of educated mind is also in abilty to see the consequence of their words. Eg. suggesting oppressed group struggling with validating their own existence and massive suicide rates coming from that struggle to entertain a though that validy is not there may not be what an educated mind would do.

snet0 4y ago

While I agree with this in the abstract, this particular case is that of a private company refusing hosting to content that it (or, perhaps, its advertisers) does not want their name attached to. It'd be nice if we didn't have this situation, e.g. income not being tied directly to advertisers -> indirectly to LCD of opinion. I don't know if you were implying that Twitch ought not remove this content, but I just feel like sometimes the conversation gets taken to an abstract space, the conclusions of which then get applied to concrete space e.g. Twitch. It's important to recognise the rights we give private companies to decide what they provide airtime to.

StanislavPetrov 4y ago
>this particular case is that of a private company refusing hosting to content I believe this argument holds water on some level, when it regards a small private company, but it is much less compelling when that "private company" is Amazon (who owns Twitch), Google, Twitter, Facebook or another behemoth with hundreds of millions of users. At that point, it becomes a very chilling attack on free speech, which is why I think that many big tech platforms should be designated at common carriers.
- cmilton 4y ago
  Correct. What if the private company is Visa or Mastercard? What if it is your only ISP?
  - snet0 4y ago
    It's slightly different in that those are basically utility companies at this point, but there's definitely an argument to be made that certain levels of social media ubiquity ought to qualify them as a utility, since you lose so much through not being able to interact with them.
- snet0 4y ago
  Yeah I'm definitely sympathetic to this, and I think the next decade will determine how we proceed with these cases. It does feel like, while they're all private companies, if a random individual was to be banned from all social media platforms, their life really cannot function at some level in a lot of modern societies, so we ought to treat these companies differently. When the companies are generating revenue through selling advertisements, and the advertisers decide "yeah we actually don't want to buy a pre-roll on the stream where the guy is making racist comments", it's another level of difficulty to navigate. Should these companies be required to host someone's content at a loss, given that they have some way for advertisers to "block" certain content types from being associated with their brands?

PartiallyTyped 4y ago

As a society we shouldn't tolerate the intolerant, those who seek every excuse to vilify and target minorities. FYI, certain prominent political leaders said they’d outlaw certain minorities and make the lives of people living hell. Personally i am not fond of seeing friends and family suffer at the hand of fascists. @Dang, since when is paraphrasing Popper and restating the statements of people without a sliver of modification or strawmans worth flagging? Don't you think there is a problem with abuse here?

thatswrong0 4y ago
The problem I'm seeing is that with some regularity, people are being designated as "intolerant" for simply asking questions, deviating slightly from the most up-to-date acceptable opinion, or just not keeping up with what is the correct opinion to have now. Applying nuance and assuming that others _might_ have good intentions isn't really in vogue.
- PartiallyTyped 4y ago
  JAQing off and asking questions to learn and understand are two truly different things. Misrepresenting positions and arguments to a rabid “fanbase” is not asking questions. It’s time the charades stop and the fascists drop the pretences, oh wait their supreme leader has PUBLICLY said he will ensure that trans people will be outlawed. No amount of science and evidence is ever enough for these people either. Transsexualism is not a new thing and to claim it is is either wilfully ignorant when you act as a host and don’t do due diligence, or maliciously intentional. I am not asking people to have correct opinions, i am asking that they listen to those who did the science and the research, i am asking that they talk to actual trans people about their experiences. Perhaps asking for some empathy (not sympathy) as a fellow human is already too much.
  - nomel 4y ago
    The problem is, there’s no way for you to know which type of person it is until you’ve talked with them for a bit. From what I’ve seen, people immediately condemn anyone not in lockstep, and never find out, leaving a very confused, interested person, who only experiences irrational, negative, interactions.

saynay 4y ago

Such as Twitch's opinion that this joke was a violation of their TOS, and thus deserving of a temp ban? That opinion seems to be making a lot of people here pretty uncomfortable.

flangola7 4y ago
A common defining attribute of harmful people like bigots is an inability to self reflect. It's akin to a thief being mad a court ordered them to turn money over to the victim. "When I take money it's wrong, but when they take it from me it's ok. People need to be comfortable with money transfers [opinions] they don't like." Which no, we don't. We will continue to take efforts to prevent and mitigate a harmful person's ability to cause harm. This is obvious to any reasonable person but unfortunately not to the chronic thief. You cannot win over him with argument, only with unilateral action such as garnishing his bank accounts for restitution and making theft culturally unacceptable.
- odessacubbage 4y ago
  >We will continue to take efforts to prevent and mitigate a harmful person's ability to cause harm. the channel in question is literally a bot that strings together semi-coherent sentences from chat gpt with little to no object permanence. there is no person or harmful intent to mitigate here, it is just a bunch of words in a blender.
  - flangola7 4y ago
    I'm not talking about the bot, I'm talking about all the people reacting negatively to its temporary ban.

ihateyouall123 4y ago

[flagged]