4 ms·

No it doesn't. I reject your slippery slope fallacy. The line must always be drawn somewhere, should YouTube allow neonazi content because any censorship leads

No it doesn't. I reject your slippery slope fallacy. The line must always be drawn somewhere, should YouTube allow neonazi content because any censorship leads to more censorship? Of course not.

A4ET8a8uTh0_v2 1y ago
[flagged]
- paulryanrogers 1y ago
  > If it is not against the law, it should be up. Does this mean it would be illegal for private platforms to take down legal content? All platforms or only those that are defacto public spaces?
  - A4ET8a8uTh0_v2 1y ago
    I have no clearly defined strong feelings on that part of it yet. I am leaning towards the latter, but I honestly dislike the approach, because its a given that any factor used to determine what a public space is will be played with.
- thrance 1y ago
  > As history has shown No the hell it didn't. When has policing nazi speech ever led to authoritarianism? It's quite the contrary, let the bigoted invade public space and you end up with a fascist government, like the one currently in the US, who won't give a fuck about your free speech. Paradox of tolerance [1]: > If a society extends tolerance to those who are intolerant, it risks enabling the eventual dominance of intolerance; thereby undermining the very principle of tolerance. To be clear, are you claiming that the repressive censoring in China started with good intentions and then degenerated, or that free speech absolutism guarantees the perenity of your freedom of speech? Because neither claim is true. An authoritarian government won't care about what your constitution says. We have to take measures to stop wannabe dictators from getting power, as that is the only protection of your free speech. Why respect the free speech of nazis, who would send you to a death camp the second they're able to? > If it is not against the law, it should be up. Well, yeah. The question is what we set the law to be. Siegheiling in public is illegal where I live, and rightfully so if you ask me. There is always a line. The US draws it a CSAM. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_tolerance https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_tolerance
  - A4ET8a8uTh0_v2 1y ago
    << When has policing nazi speech ever led to authoritarianism? Heh. You know what. I will let you figure it out on your own. I am ok with waiting. << Because neither claim is true. I claim neither though. What I do claim, however, is that playing that game of whack-a-mole is not only a waste of time, but actually counter-productive. You may be able to pat yourself on the pack and quote paradox of intolerance at people until cows come home, but it won't change that simple reality. And I am ok with that too. Not that long ago, I was a little more annoyed with people devoting their limited lifespans unto that goal. Now I know better. << An authoritarian government won't care about what your constitution says. Correct. << We have to take measures to stop wannabe dictators from getting power, With you so far. << as that is the only protection of your free speech Honestly, I have realized that no one is actually going to stop me from saying what I want to say. << Why respect the free speech of nazis Because, friend, in the words of one supreme court justice ( and ,I might add, opinion of a fair part of the legal community ) is that it typically is not nice people or nice speech that needs protecting. It is the assholes and the 'bad' speech. But just because they are assholes and 'bad' speech, does not make the rights not apply. Do you understand why? If not, allow me to spell it out for you, because I do feel charitable today. It is because by undermining asshole speech, you undermine your own. << who would send you to a death camp the second they're able to You do realize this is not a great argument right? You are supposed to be held to a higher standard. Just because an idiot does idiot things does not give you a license to be an idiot. << Well, yeah. The question is what we set the law to be. You tell me what you think is right. Clearly, it seems you don't like US version of legal speech already.
    - thrance 1y ago
      > Heh. You know what. I will let you figure it out on your own. I am ok with waiting. Please, enlighten me. Tell me of a place that went from functional democracy, then started policing hate speech and ended up a totalitarian state because of it. > Honestly, I have realized that no one is actually going to stop me from saying what I want to say. Uh, good for you I guess? But what do you even mean by that? That you are magically immune to censorship? Because you aren't. > You do realize this is not a great argument right? You are supposed to be held to a higher standard. Just because an idiot does idiot things does not give you a license to be an idiot. Literally why should I hold nazis to a higher standard? You seem oblivious to the very real danger of far right extremism. Being charitable to nazis is how they get into power, and how you actually lose your freedom. Those aren't just "idiots" or "assholes", they're very dangerous people, and have nothing good to contribute to society. Tolerating their behavior for too long is how you get masked ICE agents abducting American citizens in broad daylight. > It is because by undermining asshole speech, you undermine your own. This is simply not true. Look at how hate speech is implemented in European society. There are clear, legal boundaries. Simply being an asshole online does not get you censored. You have to go much, much further. That is the slippery slope fallacy. Policing neonazi activity today doesn't lead to censorship of all political opponents tomorrow. To the contrary, controlling nazi speech and other hateful ideologies helps guaranteeing the perennity of the freedom (of speech, and others) of the rest of the citizenship. If you reject this basic idea, I fear we have nothing more to exchange.
SkyBelow 1y ago
It is a logical fallacy if used as part of an absolute claim, but it doesn't make it always wrong when used in general statements. Some slopes are slippery, we can look at history to see this. We can't claim all slopes are slippery, this doesn't mean that no slope is slippery. People aren't starting with axioms and then defining what absolutely will happen. People are discussing trends that appear to happen generally, but there will be exceptions. Going to college leads to a better job is a slippery slope, it doesn't always happen, but going to college is still good advice (and even better advice if one is willing to go into detail about the degree, the costs, the plans at college, and so on). If we want to reject something as a logical fallacy, we need to consider if the other person's argument hinges on something always happening as some sort of logical proof, or if it hinges on it happening only at or above some threshold. If the first case, pointing out a slippery slope argument is a valid counter, but in the second case, it isn't and instead leads to two people talking past each other (one arguing X happens often enough to be a concern, the other arguing that X doesn't always happen, both statements that could be true).
- thrance 1y ago
  But that's the thing, when have hate speech laws led to repressive censorship, ever? It is a slippery slope, since there's no example to point to. I'll link another comment of mine which expands on the subject: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44200533 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44200533

No it doesn't. I reject your slippery slope fallacy. The line must always be drawn somewhere, should YouTube allow neonazi content because any censorship leads to more censorship? Of course not.

A4ET8a8uTh0_v2 1y ago

[flagged]

paulryanrogers 1y ago
> If it is not against the law, it should be up. Does this mean it would be illegal for private platforms to take down legal content? All platforms or only those that are defacto public spaces?
- A4ET8a8uTh0_v2 1y ago
  I have no clearly defined strong feelings on that part of it yet. I am leaning towards the latter, but I honestly dislike the approach, because its a given that any factor used to determine what a public space is will be played with.
thrance 1y ago
> As history has shown No the hell it didn't. When has policing nazi speech ever led to authoritarianism? It's quite the contrary, let the bigoted invade public space and you end up with a fascist government, like the one currently in the US, who won't give a fuck about your free speech. Paradox of tolerance [1]: > If a society extends tolerance to those who are intolerant, it risks enabling the eventual dominance of intolerance; thereby undermining the very principle of tolerance. To be clear, are you claiming that the repressive censoring in China started with good intentions and then degenerated, or that free speech absolutism guarantees the perenity of your freedom of speech? Because neither claim is true. An authoritarian government won't care about what your constitution says. We have to take measures to stop wannabe dictators from getting power, as that is the only protection of your free speech. Why respect the free speech of nazis, who would send you to a death camp the second they're able to? > If it is not against the law, it should be up. Well, yeah. The question is what we set the law to be. Siegheiling in public is illegal where I live, and rightfully so if you ask me. There is always a line. The US draws it a CSAM. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_tolerance https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_tolerance
- A4ET8a8uTh0_v2 1y ago
  << When has policing nazi speech ever led to authoritarianism? Heh. You know what. I will let you figure it out on your own. I am ok with waiting. << Because neither claim is true. I claim neither though. What I do claim, however, is that playing that game of whack-a-mole is not only a waste of time, but actually counter-productive. You may be able to pat yourself on the pack and quote paradox of intolerance at people until cows come home, but it won't change that simple reality. And I am ok with that too. Not that long ago, I was a little more annoyed with people devoting their limited lifespans unto that goal. Now I know better. << An authoritarian government won't care about what your constitution says. Correct. << We have to take measures to stop wannabe dictators from getting power, With you so far. << as that is the only protection of your free speech Honestly, I have realized that no one is actually going to stop me from saying what I want to say. << Why respect the free speech of nazis Because, friend, in the words of one supreme court justice ( and ,I might add, opinion of a fair part of the legal community ) is that it typically is not nice people or nice speech that needs protecting. It is the assholes and the 'bad' speech. But just because they are assholes and 'bad' speech, does not make the rights not apply. Do you understand why? If not, allow me to spell it out for you, because I do feel charitable today. It is because by undermining asshole speech, you undermine your own. << who would send you to a death camp the second they're able to You do realize this is not a great argument right? You are supposed to be held to a higher standard. Just because an idiot does idiot things does not give you a license to be an idiot. << Well, yeah. The question is what we set the law to be. You tell me what you think is right. Clearly, it seems you don't like US version of legal speech already.
  - thrance 1y ago
    > Heh. You know what. I will let you figure it out on your own. I am ok with waiting. Please, enlighten me. Tell me of a place that went from functional democracy, then started policing hate speech and ended up a totalitarian state because of it. > Honestly, I have realized that no one is actually going to stop me from saying what I want to say. Uh, good for you I guess? But what do you even mean by that? That you are magically immune to censorship? Because you aren't. > You do realize this is not a great argument right? You are supposed to be held to a higher standard. Just because an idiot does idiot things does not give you a license to be an idiot. Literally why should I hold nazis to a higher standard? You seem oblivious to the very real danger of far right extremism. Being charitable to nazis is how they get into power, and how you actually lose your freedom. Those aren't just "idiots" or "assholes", they're very dangerous people, and have nothing good to contribute to society. Tolerating their behavior for too long is how you get masked ICE agents abducting American citizens in broad daylight. > It is because by undermining asshole speech, you undermine your own. This is simply not true. Look at how hate speech is implemented in European society. There are clear, legal boundaries. Simply being an asshole online does not get you censored. You have to go much, much further. That is the slippery slope fallacy. Policing neonazi activity today doesn't lead to censorship of all political opponents tomorrow. To the contrary, controlling nazi speech and other hateful ideologies helps guaranteeing the perennity of the freedom (of speech, and others) of the rest of the citizenship. If you reject this basic idea, I fear we have nothing more to exchange.

SkyBelow 1y ago

It is a logical fallacy if used as part of an absolute claim, but it doesn't make it always wrong when used in general statements. Some slopes are slippery, we can look at history to see this. We can't claim all slopes are slippery, this doesn't mean that no slope is slippery. People aren't starting with axioms and then defining what absolutely will happen. People are discussing trends that appear to happen generally, but there will be exceptions. Going to college leads to a better job is a slippery slope, it doesn't always happen, but going to college is still good advice (and even better advice if one is willing to go into detail about the degree, the costs, the plans at college, and so on). If we want to reject something as a logical fallacy, we need to consider if the other person's argument hinges on something always happening as some sort of logical proof, or if it hinges on it happening only at or above some threshold. If the first case, pointing out a slippery slope argument is a valid counter, but in the second case, it isn't and instead leads to two people talking past each other (one arguing X happens often enough to be a concern, the other arguing that X doesn't always happen, both statements that could be true).

thrance 1y ago
But that's the thing, when have hate speech laws led to repressive censorship, ever? It is a slippery slope, since there's no example to point to. I'll link another comment of mine which expands on the subject: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44200533 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44200533