3 ms·

Can you not see how what that XKCD says which sounds so reasonable and innocuous will look to the people on the receiving end: that they are being shamed by an

Can you not see how what that XKCD says which sounds so reasonable and innocuous will look to the people on the receiving end: that they are being shamed by an aggressive, vocal minority because of the views they sincerely hold? That this intolerance or deplatorming or whatever it gets called is likely to start as mere people not liking what you say and end in burning? Maybe both sides aren't as bad as each other but they're sure as blind as each other.

kolektiv 2y ago
What do you propose as an alternative? That people should have listen to/host a certain percentage of unpopular views regardless of will? There is nothing stopping you creating your own platform, or finding one where you're welcome - if that fails to get much traction, it's probably because your message isn't very popular, and the people opposed to it perhaps weren't a minority. What is it that you should do with, let's say, Nazis? Should the rest of society not make it clear that they consider them abhorrent?
- scandox 2y ago
  There's no reason to reach for the Nazis. As an example they are the reverse of clarifying. What I've seen the last 15 years is both right and left aggressively hollowing out the centre. Views that would have been vaguely centre right in the Clinton era described as fascistic. Views that would have been faintly centre left treated as communist propaganda. And the contempt and hatred on both sides showed me that nobody despite their protestations would have any problem with their opponents being subjected to any kind of suppression if they had the power to do so... Edit: to answer your question I do not have the solution but I believe better psychology and more respect for the other view point is certainly the starting point.
  - nindalf 2y ago
    I'm going to paste in the xkcd transcript here, just so we're on the same page. > Public Service Announcement: The Right to Free Speech means the government can't arrest you for what you say. It doesn't mean that anyone else has to listen to your bullshit, or host you while you share it. The 1st Amendment doesn't shield you from criticism or consequences. If you're yelled at, boycotted, have your show canceled, or get banned from an Internet community, your free speech rights aren't being violated. It's just that the people listening think you're an asshole, and they're showing you the door. If we don't like someone, we don't need to support them right? If I'm right wing, and I don't like Taylor Swift's views on politics, I don't need to support her. More than that, there's nothing wrong with me telling my friends "guys, don't go to her concerts, she's a terrible person." This is fine! It is completely ok! Taylor Swift might be in dire financial straits because we don't give her our money, but that's the consequence of her sharing views that her fans don't. Of course in an ideal world we separate the art from the artist etc, but we don't need to. It's part of our right to free speech to associate only with those we want to. And certainly let's not try to set up a false equivalence between boycotting (or "cancelling") Swift with the Federal Government penalising lawyers for doing their jobs. Anyone entering a thread about Trump weaponising the government talking about "muh cancel culture did it first", that's a low quality contribution that only empowers Trump and his lackeys.
    - scandox 2y ago
      What I'm saying is that the poor psychology and overreach of one side empowered him in the first place. And I see no sign of those people understanding their role in that dynamic.
      - nindalf 2y ago
        I hear you. I'm saying you're mistaken. Just because Trump justifies his terrible acts by pointing out to DEI, cancel culture or whatever, doesn't mean those things were wrong. You're thinking of an alternate history where there was no cancel culture and there would be no Trump, and therefore the people who cancelled anyone are responsible for Trump. No. Trump voters are responsible for Trump. Trump is responsible for Trump. Someone who said "fuck Roseanne Barr, I'll never watch her show again" has 0 responsibility.
      - guelo 2y ago
        That's bully mentality, that the bully was provoked and is somewhat justified.
      - nindalf 2y ago
        Just hypothetically, if people stopped buying Teslas because they didn’t like the CEO, and the stock price fell 50% in 2 months, is that cancel culture too? Is that “poor psychology”? Are we “overreaching”? Should we go out there and buy Teslas and Tesla stock so that the CEO’s feelings don’t get hurt? Come on man, be real. Stop it with the enlightened centrism.
    - renata 2y ago
      But if you own the biggest social network in the world and say "Taylor Swift is no longer allowed to advertise or promote her music on this platform", just because you don't agree with her politics, people might see that as censorship, or at least shady.
      - nindalf 2y ago
        That is true, a social network doing it is not the same as an individual doing it. But social networks are businesses too, right. They're beholden to advertisers, just like network TV. So what they allow is constrained by what advertisers will accept. And lastly, the network is beholden to its own users. If the users don't like being surrounded by Nazis, they'll leave. Compare Twitter when it was bought to it now. On any metric it's much worse. Lower revenue, 10x lower valuation. It's a cesspit, but at least no right winger is censored right! That's something.

kolektiv 2y ago

What do you propose as an alternative? That people should have listen to/host a certain percentage of unpopular views regardless of will? There is nothing stopping you creating your own platform, or finding one where you're welcome - if that fails to get much traction, it's probably because your message isn't very popular, and the people opposed to it perhaps weren't a minority. What is it that you should do with, let's say, Nazis? Should the rest of society not make it clear that they consider them abhorrent?

scandox 2y ago
There's no reason to reach for the Nazis. As an example they are the reverse of clarifying. What I've seen the last 15 years is both right and left aggressively hollowing out the centre. Views that would have been vaguely centre right in the Clinton era described as fascistic. Views that would have been faintly centre left treated as communist propaganda. And the contempt and hatred on both sides showed me that nobody despite their protestations would have any problem with their opponents being subjected to any kind of suppression if they had the power to do so... Edit: to answer your question I do not have the solution but I believe better psychology and more respect for the other view point is certainly the starting point.
- nindalf 2y ago
  I'm going to paste in the xkcd transcript here, just so we're on the same page. > Public Service Announcement: The Right to Free Speech means the government can't arrest you for what you say. It doesn't mean that anyone else has to listen to your bullshit, or host you while you share it. The 1st Amendment doesn't shield you from criticism or consequences. If you're yelled at, boycotted, have your show canceled, or get banned from an Internet community, your free speech rights aren't being violated. It's just that the people listening think you're an asshole, and they're showing you the door. If we don't like someone, we don't need to support them right? If I'm right wing, and I don't like Taylor Swift's views on politics, I don't need to support her. More than that, there's nothing wrong with me telling my friends "guys, don't go to her concerts, she's a terrible person." This is fine! It is completely ok! Taylor Swift might be in dire financial straits because we don't give her our money, but that's the consequence of her sharing views that her fans don't. Of course in an ideal world we separate the art from the artist etc, but we don't need to. It's part of our right to free speech to associate only with those we want to. And certainly let's not try to set up a false equivalence between boycotting (or "cancelling") Swift with the Federal Government penalising lawyers for doing their jobs. Anyone entering a thread about Trump weaponising the government talking about "muh cancel culture did it first", that's a low quality contribution that only empowers Trump and his lackeys.
  - scandox 2y ago
    What I'm saying is that the poor psychology and overreach of one side empowered him in the first place. And I see no sign of those people understanding their role in that dynamic.
    - nindalf 2y ago
      I hear you. I'm saying you're mistaken. Just because Trump justifies his terrible acts by pointing out to DEI, cancel culture or whatever, doesn't mean those things were wrong. You're thinking of an alternate history where there was no cancel culture and there would be no Trump, and therefore the people who cancelled anyone are responsible for Trump. No. Trump voters are responsible for Trump. Trump is responsible for Trump. Someone who said "fuck Roseanne Barr, I'll never watch her show again" has 0 responsibility.
    - guelo 2y ago
      That's bully mentality, that the bully was provoked and is somewhat justified.
    - nindalf 2y ago
      Just hypothetically, if people stopped buying Teslas because they didn’t like the CEO, and the stock price fell 50% in 2 months, is that cancel culture too? Is that “poor psychology”? Are we “overreaching”? Should we go out there and buy Teslas and Tesla stock so that the CEO’s feelings don’t get hurt? Come on man, be real. Stop it with the enlightened centrism.
  - renata 2y ago
    But if you own the biggest social network in the world and say "Taylor Swift is no longer allowed to advertise or promote her music on this platform", just because you don't agree with her politics, people might see that as censorship, or at least shady.
    - nindalf 2y ago
      That is true, a social network doing it is not the same as an individual doing it. But social networks are businesses too, right. They're beholden to advertisers, just like network TV. So what they allow is constrained by what advertisers will accept. And lastly, the network is beholden to its own users. If the users don't like being surrounded by Nazis, they'll leave. Compare Twitter when it was bought to it now. On any metric it's much worse. Lower revenue, 10x lower valuation. It's a cesspit, but at least no right winger is censored right! That's something.