4 ms·

What many in the US don't have conceptual familiarity with is pre-genocidal speech. Historically and empirically, the actual call to violence only happens at th

What many in the US don't have conceptual familiarity with is pre-genocidal speech. Historically and empirically, the actual call to violence only happens at the end of a long period of collectivizing dehumanization via media, when people are already pliable for it. In my view, those causal antecedents to genocide should be illegal due to their historically proven connection to genocide. This speech is more dangerous and leads to more dead bodies than other types of speech which are already illegal, like isolated calls to individual violence or libel.

tehjoker 1y ago
You make some good points but the problem is these efforts are usually bankrolled by well connected right wingers, so the state will not enforce the law unless there has effectively been a socialist revolution that deprives the right of power and money almost completely.
- api 1y ago
  … because nominally socialist movements have never committed genocide? Go read Gulag Archipelago or listen to the recent Behind the Bastards podcast on Pol Pot. It seems to be something humans do, a kind of tribal warfare or “raiding” program deep in the brain stem that can be activated. Nobody has a monopoly on it. It seems possible to activate these behaviors with any pattern of rhetoric that dehumanizes a group of people and creates a powerful in group out group schism. That can be framed in any way — right wing, left wing, anything.
  - lazide 1y ago
    When a group is worried the ‘music is going to stop’ and is trying to make sure they have a chair reserved, is when this typically happens. And frankly - it’s deeply embedded in human nature because in a resource constrained environment, it’s what works.
    - api 1y ago
      I used the term raiding because this is what it’s called in chimps, our closest genetic relatives. This is primate behavior. The proto-genocidal rhetoric you are hearing in the US right now is probably linked to fear that in the near future nobody below, say, the top 10% of the ability curve, will have a job. So close the borders and kick out “outsiders” and go after minorities. Chimp behavior. By that I don’t mean to say these people are uniquely dumb. My point is that this is brain stem encoded behavior that can be triggered in all humans.
      - lazide 1y ago
        Well, and encoded that way because it works by many definitions of the word. And can you say they are for sure wrong?
        energy123 1y ago
        You could argue it's a maladaptation in a modern setting, now that many non-zero-sum games are available, and now that existential risks are a thing. It worked by many definitions of the word in ancestral environment which was very different to the modern environment. Our brains are now trying to apply those chimp heuristics in an environment that they're not designed for.
        api 1y ago
        That’s exactly what I would argue, and in addition to the X-risks (global thermonuclear war etc.) it’s also a giant source of unnecessary human misery and massive waste of resources. In many cases the resources we spend hoarding and raiding and doing other chimp things could make us all 2X or more wealthier if we did not fight. Right now the US is spending billions of debt financed dollars to rid itself of people who want to become tax paying citizens because they have brown skin. A beyond human intelligence would look at this the way we look at ant mills. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ant_mill https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ant_mill “Just quit circling.” But I’m sure circling forever feels right and proper in the belly, or whatever the ant’s equivalent of deep feelings of rightness feel like.
  - keybored 1y ago
    Look over the comment you replied to and you’ll see that they didn’t say that socialist movements have never been violent. Is a socialist revolution not violent? Of course when people are confronted with the fact that the right-wing foment violence in order to protect their interests we’re right back to quasi-psychology about original sin à la some Canadian called Bernt. “It’s all the same man”
- shortrounddev2 1y ago
  I think socialist revolutions have killed more "out group" members than any political/religious movement in human history
  - kelseyfrog 1y ago
    Debatable. Capitalism has a kill count of 100 million and shows no signs of slowing down. Death counts linked to capitalism and neoliberalism are cumulative, indirect, and often undercounted because they manifest as "normal" outcomes of policy: poverty, malnutrition, or ecological collapse. Capitalism and neoliberalism externalize death ie: they make it appear as an individual or national failure, not a systemic one.
    - shortrounddev2 1y ago
      Source? Liberalization since the 1970s (so called "neoliberalism") has lifted more people out of poverty than any economic system in human history. ~60% of all humans lived in extreme poverty in 1970, and less than 10% do today. This period coincided with the expansion of free trade, deregulation of markets, modernization of monetary policy, and, perhaps most notably, the downfall of communism. I'd say capitalism is a net positive compared to what we had before, and especially compared to the alternative
      - tehjoker 1y ago
        Most of the recent improvements have come from china
      - kelseyfrog 1y ago
        You're shifting the frame. The original question was about cumulative deaths, direct or indirect, linked to systems like socialism or capitalism, not about which one produced more GDP growth. Pointing to poverty reduction doesn't erase the structural harms capitalism has caused or the millions who've died from preventable conditions under regimes that prioritized market logic over human need. You can't ethically "net out" human deaths with economic gains. That treats lives as statistical noise in a profit-loss spreadsheet. It’s not just bad morality, it’s bad history too.
ryeats 1y ago
This is a good example of hate speech. You are dehumanizing people of the US saying they don't conceptual understand morality and can't decide for themselves what is morally wrong or right.
- bloomingeek 1y ago
  Oh my, do explain further!
- cjfd 1y ago
  They can understand morality but have chosen not to. They can decide what is morally wrong and right and then have chosen wrong and have decided not to care about it.
  - ryeats 1y ago
    I was being ironic, because their is an actual honest disagreement about morality but not being able to talk about it because it's considered by a some to be hate speech doesn't make it go away. If flat earthers can't talk about a flat earth then no one will dissuade them of the notion.
- breppp 1y ago
  good thing the good old belgians know how to spot a genocide in africa
deleted 1y ago
[deleted]
prosody 1y ago
When I read about the leak of the new Meta internal guidance for content moderation[1], my first thought was that the only things they banned were likely things that they understood to be pre-genocidal speech (eg comparisons of a group to vermin). Rules that seem kind of arbitrary to a modern western audience but which click in place if you look at propaganda that was issued during historical genocides. [1] https://theintercept.com/2025/01/09/facebook-instagram-meta-hate-speech-content-moderation/ https://theintercept.com/2025/01/09/facebook-instagram-meta-...

tehjoker 1y ago

You make some good points but the problem is these efforts are usually bankrolled by well connected right wingers, so the state will not enforce the law unless there has effectively been a socialist revolution that deprives the right of power and money almost completely.

api 1y ago
… because nominally socialist movements have never committed genocide? Go read Gulag Archipelago or listen to the recent Behind the Bastards podcast on Pol Pot. It seems to be something humans do, a kind of tribal warfare or “raiding” program deep in the brain stem that can be activated. Nobody has a monopoly on it. It seems possible to activate these behaviors with any pattern of rhetoric that dehumanizes a group of people and creates a powerful in group out group schism. That can be framed in any way — right wing, left wing, anything.
- lazide 1y ago
  When a group is worried the ‘music is going to stop’ and is trying to make sure they have a chair reserved, is when this typically happens. And frankly - it’s deeply embedded in human nature because in a resource constrained environment, it’s what works.
  - api 1y ago
    I used the term raiding because this is what it’s called in chimps, our closest genetic relatives. This is primate behavior. The proto-genocidal rhetoric you are hearing in the US right now is probably linked to fear that in the near future nobody below, say, the top 10% of the ability curve, will have a job. So close the borders and kick out “outsiders” and go after minorities. Chimp behavior. By that I don’t mean to say these people are uniquely dumb. My point is that this is brain stem encoded behavior that can be triggered in all humans.
    - lazide 1y ago
      Well, and encoded that way because it works by many definitions of the word. And can you say they are for sure wrong?
      - energy123 1y ago
        You could argue it's a maladaptation in a modern setting, now that many non-zero-sum games are available, and now that existential risks are a thing. It worked by many definitions of the word in ancestral environment which was very different to the modern environment. Our brains are now trying to apply those chimp heuristics in an environment that they're not designed for.
        api 1y ago
        That’s exactly what I would argue, and in addition to the X-risks (global thermonuclear war etc.) it’s also a giant source of unnecessary human misery and massive waste of resources. In many cases the resources we spend hoarding and raiding and doing other chimp things could make us all 2X or more wealthier if we did not fight. Right now the US is spending billions of debt financed dollars to rid itself of people who want to become tax paying citizens because they have brown skin. A beyond human intelligence would look at this the way we look at ant mills. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ant_mill https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ant_mill “Just quit circling.” But I’m sure circling forever feels right and proper in the belly, or whatever the ant’s equivalent of deep feelings of rightness feel like.
- keybored 1y ago
  Look over the comment you replied to and you’ll see that they didn’t say that socialist movements have never been violent. Is a socialist revolution not violent? Of course when people are confronted with the fact that the right-wing foment violence in order to protect their interests we’re right back to quasi-psychology about original sin à la some Canadian called Bernt. “It’s all the same man”
shortrounddev2 1y ago
I think socialist revolutions have killed more "out group" members than any political/religious movement in human history
- kelseyfrog 1y ago
  Debatable. Capitalism has a kill count of 100 million and shows no signs of slowing down. Death counts linked to capitalism and neoliberalism are cumulative, indirect, and often undercounted because they manifest as "normal" outcomes of policy: poverty, malnutrition, or ecological collapse. Capitalism and neoliberalism externalize death ie: they make it appear as an individual or national failure, not a systemic one.
  - shortrounddev2 1y ago
    Source? Liberalization since the 1970s (so called "neoliberalism") has lifted more people out of poverty than any economic system in human history. ~60% of all humans lived in extreme poverty in 1970, and less than 10% do today. This period coincided with the expansion of free trade, deregulation of markets, modernization of monetary policy, and, perhaps most notably, the downfall of communism. I'd say capitalism is a net positive compared to what we had before, and especially compared to the alternative
    - tehjoker 1y ago
      Most of the recent improvements have come from china
    - kelseyfrog 1y ago
      You're shifting the frame. The original question was about cumulative deaths, direct or indirect, linked to systems like socialism or capitalism, not about which one produced more GDP growth. Pointing to poverty reduction doesn't erase the structural harms capitalism has caused or the millions who've died from preventable conditions under regimes that prioritized market logic over human need. You can't ethically "net out" human deaths with economic gains. That treats lives as statistical noise in a profit-loss spreadsheet. It’s not just bad morality, it’s bad history too.

ryeats 1y ago

This is a good example of hate speech. You are dehumanizing people of the US saying they don't conceptual understand morality and can't decide for themselves what is morally wrong or right.

bloomingeek 1y ago
Oh my, do explain further!
cjfd 1y ago
They can understand morality but have chosen not to. They can decide what is morally wrong and right and then have chosen wrong and have decided not to care about it.
- ryeats 1y ago
  I was being ironic, because their is an actual honest disagreement about morality but not being able to talk about it because it's considered by a some to be hate speech doesn't make it go away. If flat earthers can't talk about a flat earth then no one will dissuade them of the notion.
breppp 1y ago
good thing the good old belgians know how to spot a genocide in africa

deleted 1y ago

[deleted]

prosody 1y ago

When I read about the leak of the new Meta internal guidance for content moderation[1], my first thought was that the only things they banned were likely things that they understood to be pre-genocidal speech (eg comparisons of a group to vermin). Rules that seem kind of arbitrary to a modern western audience but which click in place if you look at propaganda that was issued during historical genocides. [1] https://theintercept.com/2025/01/09/facebook-instagram-meta-hate-speech-content-moderation/ https://theintercept.com/2025/01/09/facebook-instagram-meta-...