4 ms·

> Not the rampant racism or sexism or simple misanthropy or outright calls to violence or overflowing hostility. Isn't that more easily solved by just not visi

> Not the rampant racism or sexism or simple misanthropy or outright calls to violence or overflowing hostility. Isn't that more easily solved by just not visiting the site in the first place?

tovej 2y ago
This problem is a societal one, it mostly harms you indirectly by creating spaces for hateful ideas to spread, 4chan's harm is through the capacity to organize and strengthen hateful and harmful political movements. More socially conscious people not visiting the site only serves to create a stronger echo chamber.
- ranger_danger 2y ago
  This is how oppression starts. First it's "let's only get rid of the most offensive content", then "let's suppress opinions we don't like".
  - tovej 2y ago
    Would you please tell me one example where oppression has started with criticizing nazis.
    - ranger_danger 2y ago
      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_Army_Faction https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_Army_Faction
      - tovej 2y ago
        This is an armed resistance group, not an academic clique, and the violence was a reaction to attacks (e.g. beatings, assassination attempt). It's also not an example of oppression, even though it is violent.
  - aguaviva 2y ago
    This is how oppression starts More often though it starts with wave after wave of logical fallacy. As applies to your critique above, for example: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slippery_slope https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slippery_slope
    - Etherlord87 2y ago
      A slippery slope argument is not necessarily a slippery slope fallacy. Which you should understand after reading the article you linked.
      - deleted 2y ago
        [deleted]
      - aguaviva 2y ago
        In this case it plainly is though, if we just think about what they're saying.
        Etherlord87 2y ago
        Plainly to you, but not to me. What isn't obvious to everyone, isn't really obvious. You didn't care to explain what kind of stopping mechanisms are there, that make it not a slippery slope. Rowan Atkinson gives some nice examples here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xUezfuy8Qpc https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xUezfuy8Qpc I'd say rather than there being *a risk* of descending too low on that slippery slope, we already have plenty of evidence this already happened. I'm from Poland and recently a party in ruling coalition proposed criminalizing hate speech on the Internet. Fortunately, precisely the slippery slope rhetoric, supported by evidence from countries like UK, seems to be enough of a backlash to stop politicians from following such ideas.
        aguaviva 2y ago
        For starters -- the commenter wasn't actually suggesting that this kind of content needs to be suppressed. In order to have a slippery slope, you need something to extrapolate from. But the commenter wasn't providing that.
- matheusmoreira 2y ago
  The fact you think some ideas are "harmful" is exactly why humanity needs sites like these. We don't trust people like you to determine which ideas are "harmful" and which aren't, which ideas are worth spreading and which aren't. We want to see for ourselves, thank you very much. We are especially interested in the ideas that people deem offensive enough to suppress. Are they actually wrong or are they just socially unacceptable? Whatever the truth is, it can't be learned from a place that suppresses discussion of it. Declaring the matter as settled and suppressing any opposing viewpoint is the very definition of an echo chamber.
  - tovej 2y ago
    You're saying national socialism is not harmful? /pol/, /b/, and tons of other boards constantly spawn threads glorifying nazi germany and vilifying other ethnicities and women, using rhetoric calling for people belonging to these groups to be killed. Violent far-right groups use these threads as a pool for recruitment. These far-right groups cause real societal harm through violent crime and shifting the view on violent policies against minorities. I am not using an abstract moral argument when I say these ideas cause harm, I'm arguing based on objectively observed effects that the loose ethical norms of a liberal democratic society would unambiguously deem harmful.
    - matheusmoreira 2y ago
      > You're saying national socialism is not harmful? Everything with the word "socialism" in it is harmful. > vilifying other ethnicities and women, using rhetoric calling for people belonging to these groups to be killed Unfiltered hate like that is a property of humanity itself. It is not at all exclusive to the so called internet hate machine. If you look closely, you'll find that plenty of "virtuous" people are capable of just as much hate, if not more. I've personally witnessed it.
      - tovej 2y ago
        If you're not answering the argument, that's fine. But let's acknowledge that you did not answer the argument and are now just spouting the rhetoric of the far-right movement I'm describing.

> Not the rampant racism or sexism or simple misanthropy or outright calls to violence or overflowing hostility. Isn't that more easily solved by just not visiting the site in the first place?

tovej 2y ago

This problem is a societal one, it mostly harms you indirectly by creating spaces for hateful ideas to spread, 4chan's harm is through the capacity to organize and strengthen hateful and harmful political movements. More socially conscious people not visiting the site only serves to create a stronger echo chamber.

ranger_danger 2y ago
This is how oppression starts. First it's "let's only get rid of the most offensive content", then "let's suppress opinions we don't like".
- tovej 2y ago
  Would you please tell me one example where oppression has started with criticizing nazis.
  - ranger_danger 2y ago
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_Army_Faction https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_Army_Faction
    - tovej 2y ago
      This is an armed resistance group, not an academic clique, and the violence was a reaction to attacks (e.g. beatings, assassination attempt). It's also not an example of oppression, even though it is violent.
- aguaviva 2y ago
  This is how oppression starts More often though it starts with wave after wave of logical fallacy. As applies to your critique above, for example: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slippery_slope https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slippery_slope
  - Etherlord87 2y ago
    A slippery slope argument is not necessarily a slippery slope fallacy. Which you should understand after reading the article you linked.
    - deleted 2y ago
      [deleted]
    - aguaviva 2y ago
      In this case it plainly is though, if we just think about what they're saying.
      - Etherlord87 2y ago
        Plainly to you, but not to me. What isn't obvious to everyone, isn't really obvious. You didn't care to explain what kind of stopping mechanisms are there, that make it not a slippery slope. Rowan Atkinson gives some nice examples here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xUezfuy8Qpc https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xUezfuy8Qpc I'd say rather than there being *a risk* of descending too low on that slippery slope, we already have plenty of evidence this already happened. I'm from Poland and recently a party in ruling coalition proposed criminalizing hate speech on the Internet. Fortunately, precisely the slippery slope rhetoric, supported by evidence from countries like UK, seems to be enough of a backlash to stop politicians from following such ideas.
        aguaviva 2y ago
        For starters -- the commenter wasn't actually suggesting that this kind of content needs to be suppressed. In order to have a slippery slope, you need something to extrapolate from. But the commenter wasn't providing that.
matheusmoreira 2y ago
The fact you think some ideas are "harmful" is exactly why humanity needs sites like these. We don't trust people like you to determine which ideas are "harmful" and which aren't, which ideas are worth spreading and which aren't. We want to see for ourselves, thank you very much. We are especially interested in the ideas that people deem offensive enough to suppress. Are they actually wrong or are they just socially unacceptable? Whatever the truth is, it can't be learned from a place that suppresses discussion of it. Declaring the matter as settled and suppressing any opposing viewpoint is the very definition of an echo chamber.
- tovej 2y ago
  You're saying national socialism is not harmful? /pol/, /b/, and tons of other boards constantly spawn threads glorifying nazi germany and vilifying other ethnicities and women, using rhetoric calling for people belonging to these groups to be killed. Violent far-right groups use these threads as a pool for recruitment. These far-right groups cause real societal harm through violent crime and shifting the view on violent policies against minorities. I am not using an abstract moral argument when I say these ideas cause harm, I'm arguing based on objectively observed effects that the loose ethical norms of a liberal democratic society would unambiguously deem harmful.
  - matheusmoreira 2y ago
    > You're saying national socialism is not harmful? Everything with the word "socialism" in it is harmful. > vilifying other ethnicities and women, using rhetoric calling for people belonging to these groups to be killed Unfiltered hate like that is a property of humanity itself. It is not at all exclusive to the so called internet hate machine. If you look closely, you'll find that plenty of "virtuous" people are capable of just as much hate, if not more. I've personally witnessed it.
    - tovej 2y ago
      If you're not answering the argument, that's fine. But let's acknowledge that you did not answer the argument and are now just spouting the rhetoric of the far-right movement I'm describing.