4 ms·

You are arguing that people should share your disdain for Musk's political views. You are not arguing against the claim that this is the only really strong rea

by btilly 4y ago

You are arguing that people should share your disdain for Musk's political views. You are not arguing against the claim that this is the only really strong reason why people would want to leave. Second, libertarian ideals around free speech say that fairly engaging people whose views you disagree with is a better way to change minds than deplatforming them. That is because deplatforming them just encourages them to migrate to cesspools like Truth Social, which then become echo chambers for extremist views. Therefore there are reasons to allow offensive people to remain on a platform other than agreement with their offensive views. Speaking personally, I am firmly of the belief that the obvious political censorship applied to social networks, including by the previous management of Twitter, is one of the CAUSES of the extremism that lead to the Jan 6 insurrection. You might dislike that there are people who think your children are a disease. But surely you'd dislike it rather more if we slid into an authoritarian dictatorship where people like that are the ones in charge. Therefore it is worth looking past your good reasons for taking offense, and asking seriously what is most likely to keep violent extremist networks forming that are in a position to do just that. Note that multiple countries in Latin America copied the US Constitution's idea of separation of powers. A common pattern is that they wound up as authoritarian regimes after a powerful executive solved gridlock through declaring a state of emergency. It could happen here. In fact, it nearly did. And finally, I find the comment that you're responding to far more in the best traditions of Hacker News than your reply. Hacker News has a tradition of polite and reasoned discussion of controversial positions between people of diverse points of view. I would rather keep that tradition alive, rather than implying that people who disagree with you are horrible people who might not mind your children being eradicated with fire.

freejazz 4y ago
Ah yes, legitimizing people rioting in the US capitol because Twitter censors, when they aren't busy drinking bleach!
- czbond 4y ago
  @freejazz - I understand your point, but there is a similar counter example which I believe is powerful. The gay community made large strides as a movement to allow a civil discourse and transparent conversations with others who opposed their lifestyles by deciding to be open rather than secret. When people meet face to face, and realize we're all really similar - people tend to soften their views to be "human".
  - freejazz 4y ago
    Who is stopping them? Twitter? Twitter isn't the public square - it's just a website. It's full of advertising money that twitter controls and takes. It might be LIKE a public square, but it's not the public square.
- btilly 4y ago
  I will never understand people like you interpreting "this is a cause of that" as "legitimizing" that. It doesn't. I strongly oppose the riot, which is why I want people to take seriously the things that helped cause that. Similarly I'm not legitimizing gang violence when I say that the War on Drugs helps cause gang violence, I'm explaining why I oppose the War on Drugs.
  - freejazz 4y ago
    It's legitimizing the notion that it's even a response to the thing you claim it is. I totally dispute that. Let's look at the things the jan 6 rioters took grievances with: Mike Pence not overturning the election, nancy pelosi's existence, the federal court system which completely rebuked Trump's stolen election narrative, ALL of the media, the LIBERAL media, media in GENERAL, twitter, twitter moderation, george soros, jews, hunter biden, the crack he smoked, his penis, people who were verified on twitter, hollywood, jews, the thought that racism still exists... if someone tells me the said they did something, and it's because of a ghost, and I accept their reasoning, then I am legitimizing the connection they allege. I dispute this connection. that's what I'm accusing you of legitimizing, their 'rationality'. they might call it rationality, but I don't have to. and maybe that's not what you meant, but I fairly took you to mean it, because you are apparently taking them at their word.
    - btilly 4y ago
      Meh. You still seem like you're so fixed on making your point that you're entirely missing mine. My point is that the way that they were censored made it easier for them to find a likeminded echo chamber that helped them become radicalized extremists. And now rather than dealing with obnoxious idiots with a few bad ideas, we've got an armed rabble. Which is far worse. Whether or not this dynamic happened is completely independent of the specific extremist rhetoric that they absorbed. But having been on the receiving end of a liberal conspiracy to censor information which might be supportive of Trump, it was easier for them to take everything that Trump said to its illogical extremes. And it was easy to discount all information coming from any source which denied the existence of the conspiracy that they experienced. The result is that they were convinced that powerful liberal forces had subverted democracy and were trying to shut down the truth that Trump presented. This made Trump's lies about a stolen election very believable to them. And they got fired up enough about such conspiracy theories that it came to seem reasonable to them to ensure that the TRUE will of the American people prevail, even if that required undoing electoral fraud by tying down representatives with zipties and making them recognize Trump as President. And executing those at the heart of enabling this fraud to destroy democracy. If we don't like this outcome then it is on us to decide how to handle such extremists. My position is that it is best to undo the conditions that encourage the creation of extremism. An alternative position is to fight fire with fire, to become as extreme in opposing the extremists as they are in fighting for what they believe. However I fear that the alternative position, as emotionally satisfying as it might be, is a recipe to turn political polarization into political unrest and potentially into a civil war down the road. Enough other countries have gone down that road to project what it would be likely to happen then. And it isn't pretty. Everything that I've said is part of an argument about how to best respond to the potential for extremism. None of it legitimizes extremism or extremist positions.

by btilly 4y ago

freejazz 4y ago

Ah yes, legitimizing people rioting in the US capitol because Twitter censors, when they aren't busy drinking bleach!

czbond 4y ago
@freejazz - I understand your point, but there is a similar counter example which I believe is powerful. The gay community made large strides as a movement to allow a civil discourse and transparent conversations with others who opposed their lifestyles by deciding to be open rather than secret. When people meet face to face, and realize we're all really similar - people tend to soften their views to be "human".
- freejazz 4y ago
  Who is stopping them? Twitter? Twitter isn't the public square - it's just a website. It's full of advertising money that twitter controls and takes. It might be LIKE a public square, but it's not the public square.
btilly 4y ago
I will never understand people like you interpreting "this is a cause of that" as "legitimizing" that. It doesn't. I strongly oppose the riot, which is why I want people to take seriously the things that helped cause that. Similarly I'm not legitimizing gang violence when I say that the War on Drugs helps cause gang violence, I'm explaining why I oppose the War on Drugs.
- freejazz 4y ago
  It's legitimizing the notion that it's even a response to the thing you claim it is. I totally dispute that. Let's look at the things the jan 6 rioters took grievances with: Mike Pence not overturning the election, nancy pelosi's existence, the federal court system which completely rebuked Trump's stolen election narrative, ALL of the media, the LIBERAL media, media in GENERAL, twitter, twitter moderation, george soros, jews, hunter biden, the crack he smoked, his penis, people who were verified on twitter, hollywood, jews, the thought that racism still exists... if someone tells me the said they did something, and it's because of a ghost, and I accept their reasoning, then I am legitimizing the connection they allege. I dispute this connection. that's what I'm accusing you of legitimizing, their 'rationality'. they might call it rationality, but I don't have to. and maybe that's not what you meant, but I fairly took you to mean it, because you are apparently taking them at their word.
  - btilly 4y ago
    Meh. You still seem like you're so fixed on making your point that you're entirely missing mine. My point is that the way that they were censored made it easier for them to find a likeminded echo chamber that helped them become radicalized extremists. And now rather than dealing with obnoxious idiots with a few bad ideas, we've got an armed rabble. Which is far worse. Whether or not this dynamic happened is completely independent of the specific extremist rhetoric that they absorbed. But having been on the receiving end of a liberal conspiracy to censor information which might be supportive of Trump, it was easier for them to take everything that Trump said to its illogical extremes. And it was easy to discount all information coming from any source which denied the existence of the conspiracy that they experienced. The result is that they were convinced that powerful liberal forces had subverted democracy and were trying to shut down the truth that Trump presented. This made Trump's lies about a stolen election very believable to them. And they got fired up enough about such conspiracy theories that it came to seem reasonable to them to ensure that the TRUE will of the American people prevail, even if that required undoing electoral fraud by tying down representatives with zipties and making them recognize Trump as President. And executing those at the heart of enabling this fraud to destroy democracy. If we don't like this outcome then it is on us to decide how to handle such extremists. My position is that it is best to undo the conditions that encourage the creation of extremism. An alternative position is to fight fire with fire, to become as extreme in opposing the extremists as they are in fighting for what they believe. However I fear that the alternative position, as emotionally satisfying as it might be, is a recipe to turn political polarization into political unrest and potentially into a civil war down the road. Enough other countries have gone down that road to project what it would be likely to happen then. And it isn't pretty. Everything that I've said is part of an argument about how to best respond to the potential for extremism. None of it legitimizes extremism or extremist positions.