3 ms·

Precisely big tech's playbook is to move the goalposts as to brand conservative discourse "unreasonable" so it can be silenced.

by veave 3y ago

manuelabeledo 3y ago
Hate to break this to you, but society as a whole, and not "big tech", have "moved the goalposts" to consider hate speech frowned upon.
- brightlancer 3y ago
  Who's defining "hate speech"? Do you want Viktor Orbán to define it? How about Tayyip Erdoğan? Or Donald Trump? Or how about the Christian church? They prefer to call it blasphemy, but they'll happily call it "hate speech" if they can censor people.
  - manuelabeledo 3y ago
    What you are saying is that morals should not have changed and evolved at all, ever, because societies aren't allowed to broadly define what "respect" means, only a handful of asshats. Also, your points very strongly suggest that the paradox of the intolerance would apply here.
    - brightlancer 3y ago
      > Also, your points very strongly suggest that the paradox of the intolerance would apply here. Your response suggests you don't understand my points at all. The "paradox of tolerance" could just as easily be invoked by Orbán, Erdoğan, Trump, the Christian churches, etc. I suspect Orbán and Erdoğan HAVE. Once we give "society" the ability to decide what is and is not "hate speech", you give people you oppose and fear the ability to decide what is and is not "hate speech". The answer to that isn't to craft a better definition of "hate speech", or create a permanent majority of your particular brand of ideology, it's to eliminate the idea that any group should oppress the other based upon what they believe. It's a tenet of liberalism.
      - manuelabeledo 3y ago
        > Your response suggests you don't understand my points at all. I understand them pretty well: since moral relativism is absolute, there is no point in setting limits on speech. > ... it's to eliminate the idea that any group should oppress the other based upon what they believe. I have no issues with oppression against those wanting to oppress others. Again, paradox of tolerance.
- tivert 3y ago
  > Hate to break this to you, but society as a whole, and not "big tech", have "moved the goalposts" to consider hate speech frowned upon. And in this case "society as a whole" means liberals. It's pretty essential to understand this is an area of political controversy where rival factions are fighting with each other, and those factions have different strengths and weaknesses. The liberal faction has a much stronger hold of certain institutions (e.g. media, academia) that give it much more power over language. Redefining terms is a pretty powerful weapon. For example, if there's a consensus that "hate speech" is unacceptable, win your battle by redefining it into a grab-bag that encompasses all kinds of things you oppose. Another example is the trick of redefining "society as a whole" to mean your faction, to delegitimize your opponents even if they have similar levels of support. That tactic has the most power within the faction and with "neutrals," opponents can see through it but often have trouble countering it.
  - manuelabeledo 3y ago
    > And in this case "society as a whole" means liberals. Are we really debating if saying that "black people are intellectually inferior", is hate speech? Are the merits of any of the sides defending or attacking this statement, worth debating without a context? OP came with this broad statement that "black people IQ is lower" than other races. He stated that it was a "fact", which may as well be, but without a context, not only it is meaningless, but derogatory for no other better reason than attacking someone for the color of their skin. If we, as a society, cannot find comments like these, "wrong", then we have failed.
    - tivert 3y ago
      >> And in this case "society as a whole" means liberals. > Are we really debating if saying that "black people are intellectually inferior", is hate speech? Are the merits of any of the sides defending or attacking this statement, worth debating without a context? The OP gave two examples, and you're ignoring one. There's a lot more political across-the-board consensus about race and IQ than there is about transgenderism, and that actually factors into my point.
mindslight 3y ago
The primary moving of the goalposts here is by this online neoreactionary movement based around reminiscing on an idyllic vision of simpler times when everyone walked uphill to school both ways and people "knew their place". Everyone else is basically content not dwelling too much on things like the heritability of intelligence, regardless of whether they're technically true in the statistical sense, because of the generally horrible outcomes from doing so.

Precisely big tech's playbook is to move the goalposts as to brand conservative discourse "unreasonable" so it can be silenced.

by veave 3y ago

Precisely big tech's playbook is to move the goalposts as to brand conservative discourse "unreasonable" so it can be silenced.

manuelabeledo 3y ago

Hate to break this to you, but society as a whole, and not "big tech", have "moved the goalposts" to consider hate speech frowned upon.

brightlancer 3y ago
Who's defining "hate speech"? Do you want Viktor Orbán to define it? How about Tayyip Erdoğan? Or Donald Trump? Or how about the Christian church? They prefer to call it blasphemy, but they'll happily call it "hate speech" if they can censor people.
- manuelabeledo 3y ago
  What you are saying is that morals should not have changed and evolved at all, ever, because societies aren't allowed to broadly define what "respect" means, only a handful of asshats. Also, your points very strongly suggest that the paradox of the intolerance would apply here.
  - brightlancer 3y ago
    > Also, your points very strongly suggest that the paradox of the intolerance would apply here. Your response suggests you don't understand my points at all. The "paradox of tolerance" could just as easily be invoked by Orbán, Erdoğan, Trump, the Christian churches, etc. I suspect Orbán and Erdoğan HAVE. Once we give "society" the ability to decide what is and is not "hate speech", you give people you oppose and fear the ability to decide what is and is not "hate speech". The answer to that isn't to craft a better definition of "hate speech", or create a permanent majority of your particular brand of ideology, it's to eliminate the idea that any group should oppress the other based upon what they believe. It's a tenet of liberalism.
    - manuelabeledo 3y ago
      > Your response suggests you don't understand my points at all. I understand them pretty well: since moral relativism is absolute, there is no point in setting limits on speech. > ... it's to eliminate the idea that any group should oppress the other based upon what they believe. I have no issues with oppression against those wanting to oppress others. Again, paradox of tolerance.
tivert 3y ago
> Hate to break this to you, but society as a whole, and not "big tech", have "moved the goalposts" to consider hate speech frowned upon. And in this case "society as a whole" means liberals. It's pretty essential to understand this is an area of political controversy where rival factions are fighting with each other, and those factions have different strengths and weaknesses. The liberal faction has a much stronger hold of certain institutions (e.g. media, academia) that give it much more power over language. Redefining terms is a pretty powerful weapon. For example, if there's a consensus that "hate speech" is unacceptable, win your battle by redefining it into a grab-bag that encompasses all kinds of things you oppose. Another example is the trick of redefining "society as a whole" to mean your faction, to delegitimize your opponents even if they have similar levels of support. That tactic has the most power within the faction and with "neutrals," opponents can see through it but often have trouble countering it.
- manuelabeledo 3y ago
  > And in this case "society as a whole" means liberals. Are we really debating if saying that "black people are intellectually inferior", is hate speech? Are the merits of any of the sides defending or attacking this statement, worth debating without a context? OP came with this broad statement that "black people IQ is lower" than other races. He stated that it was a "fact", which may as well be, but without a context, not only it is meaningless, but derogatory for no other better reason than attacking someone for the color of their skin. If we, as a society, cannot find comments like these, "wrong", then we have failed.
  - tivert 3y ago
    >> And in this case "society as a whole" means liberals. > Are we really debating if saying that "black people are intellectually inferior", is hate speech? Are the merits of any of the sides defending or attacking this statement, worth debating without a context? The OP gave two examples, and you're ignoring one. There's a lot more political across-the-board consensus about race and IQ than there is about transgenderism, and that actually factors into my point.

mindslight 3y ago

The primary moving of the goalposts here is by this online neoreactionary movement based around reminiscing on an idyllic vision of simpler times when everyone walked uphill to school both ways and people "knew their place". Everyone else is basically content not dwelling too much on things like the heritability of intelligence, regardless of whether they're technically true in the statistical sense, because of the generally horrible outcomes from doing so.