4 ms·

> A culture that produces that kind of hatred will not be stopped by losing > a channel to express it. Word of mouth spreads quickly, > and actions speak e

> A culture that produces that kind of hatred will not be stopped by losing > a channel to express it. Word of mouth spreads quickly, > and actions speak even louder. Culture... is the thing that prevents the enacting of our bestial urges. This channel normalizes the bestiality, and so it becomes culture. Every society have some people without a mic that are blatantly inhuman. A society becomes it when you give them a mic.

skrebbel 1y ago
What does it mean to "give them the mic"? I feel like your comment makes sense in the abstract but when it gets more concrete it gets a lot fussy. Do you mean disallowing people who make nasty radio broadcasts? Jailing people who send nasty tweets to all their 10 followers? Most people aren't "given the mic" by some benevolent all-powerful force, they just grab a mic and use it.
- cameldrv 1y ago
  Prior to the eighties, if you put out something sufficiently noxious or unbalanced on broadcast media, you could have the FCC come visit you and threaten to revoke your broadcast license. The broadcast license was required to be used in the public interest. Then the 80s came and you had cable TV which didn’t require a broadcast license, you had video tape, and you had the repeal of the fairness doctrine. Prior to all that the only way you’d get your weird message out was through print, which reqires someone to pay for the printing and distribution, so it’s slower and more limited, and print doesn’t have the same emotional punch of TV or radio. Obviously the Internet has turbocharged this transition. If it were the 80s someone like Andrew Tate would have a very hard time getting an audience. He’d have to use print, and probably a lot of his material would be age restricted. The closest analogue I can think of is Hugh Hefner, and to read his stuff you had to be over 18, although obviously a lot of boys got their hands on a Playboy or two.
  - wegfawefgawefg 1y ago
    enforcing this would require building a panopticon world of brains in jars. no thank you. ill hold individuals responsible for their own actions and keep my freedom of speech thanks
    - cameldrv 1y ago
      Enforcing what? I’m describing what has changed.
      - exceptione 1y ago
        And even then no jars would be involved. Just keep the platform accountable. This makes so much sense, that what seeks to destroy freedoms felt compelled to warp the notion of free speech. Now look how much those free speech absolutists actually care about free speech. A classic case of the Paradox of Tolerance.
      - wegfawefgawefg 1y ago
        my apologies i was under the assumption that you were defending what I percieve to be infringements on free speech rights.
- exceptione 1y ago
  > by some benevolent all-powerful force, they just grab a mic and use it. You are a bit optimistic. It is way worse. What happens is: your media mogul more often than not lives in an environment where people's belief systems and preferences vary from oligarchy, tech-fascism, corporatism, cultism, gilded-age etc. I.e. the cult of wealth problem. Then that media mogul buys a platform, and installs a certain kind of people. Double profit: more engagement, belief systems of regular people getting anti-social. The fear, hate and disgust for their compatriots make way for sado-populism. Regular, normal people are getting so mindfucked that instead of seeking the common good they they give autocracy consent to purify society from their imaginative enemies. > Do you mean disallowing people who make nasty radio broadcasts? Yes, the paradox of tolerance is a paradox. The only way to keep a tolerant society is to not tolerate the intolerants.
wegfawefgawefg 1y ago
no it doesnt. you could blast "kill your own baby" on radio but 99% of people wouldnt do it. and if they did its their own fault. you either respect the sovereignty of an individual and they are responsible for their actions, or not and if you dont then follow that to its logical conclusion. which would be that all people are not responsible for anything ever, because even the broadcaster was told to by his own life and culture, and so on and so forth until your litigating the first living goo on the planet.
- exceptione 1y ago
  > "kill your own baby" We are talking about instigating intolerance, with material consequences. Think genocides, like in the OP and Germany in the 30's. > you either respect the sovereignty of an individual and > they are responsible for their actions, Paradox of Tolerance. [0] An individual lives in a society. Waiting for some other country to sacrifice their 18 years old to clean up your mess because you insisted that you couldn't possibly know what happens when you normalize intolerance is not so nice. And maybe there is no country who could possibly help your compatriots to get rid of their autocrats, so be careful if you try. ____ 0. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_tolerance https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_tolerance
  - briangriffinfan 1y ago
    It seems there's always a line able to be drawn from a view one disagrees with to the harm that is caused by not contradicting them, and in my experience this does not correlate with how harmful contradiction of the initial view actually is. So with regard to the paradox of tolerance, I would say one needs to establish that their opponent's views are actually sufficiently intolerant to intrinsically be harmful - and this is not something one can always trust to be done without exaggeration.
    - wegfawefgawefg 1y ago
      my personal view is people have a right to be intolerant and hateful and advocate for said intolerance and hate as much as they like. but property crime and assault are not their right. and those are illegal. so we are already covered there.

skrebbel 1y ago

What does it mean to "give them the mic"? I feel like your comment makes sense in the abstract but when it gets more concrete it gets a lot fussy. Do you mean disallowing people who make nasty radio broadcasts? Jailing people who send nasty tweets to all their 10 followers? Most people aren't "given the mic" by some benevolent all-powerful force, they just grab a mic and use it.

cameldrv 1y ago
Prior to the eighties, if you put out something sufficiently noxious or unbalanced on broadcast media, you could have the FCC come visit you and threaten to revoke your broadcast license. The broadcast license was required to be used in the public interest. Then the 80s came and you had cable TV which didn’t require a broadcast license, you had video tape, and you had the repeal of the fairness doctrine. Prior to all that the only way you’d get your weird message out was through print, which reqires someone to pay for the printing and distribution, so it’s slower and more limited, and print doesn’t have the same emotional punch of TV or radio. Obviously the Internet has turbocharged this transition. If it were the 80s someone like Andrew Tate would have a very hard time getting an audience. He’d have to use print, and probably a lot of his material would be age restricted. The closest analogue I can think of is Hugh Hefner, and to read his stuff you had to be over 18, although obviously a lot of boys got their hands on a Playboy or two.
- wegfawefgawefg 1y ago
  enforcing this would require building a panopticon world of brains in jars. no thank you. ill hold individuals responsible for their own actions and keep my freedom of speech thanks
  - cameldrv 1y ago
    Enforcing what? I’m describing what has changed.
    - exceptione 1y ago
      And even then no jars would be involved. Just keep the platform accountable. This makes so much sense, that what seeks to destroy freedoms felt compelled to warp the notion of free speech. Now look how much those free speech absolutists actually care about free speech. A classic case of the Paradox of Tolerance.
    - wegfawefgawefg 1y ago
      my apologies i was under the assumption that you were defending what I percieve to be infringements on free speech rights.
exceptione 1y ago
> by some benevolent all-powerful force, they just grab a mic and use it. You are a bit optimistic. It is way worse. What happens is: your media mogul more often than not lives in an environment where people's belief systems and preferences vary from oligarchy, tech-fascism, corporatism, cultism, gilded-age etc. I.e. the cult of wealth problem. Then that media mogul buys a platform, and installs a certain kind of people. Double profit: more engagement, belief systems of regular people getting anti-social. The fear, hate and disgust for their compatriots make way for sado-populism. Regular, normal people are getting so mindfucked that instead of seeking the common good they they give autocracy consent to purify society from their imaginative enemies. > Do you mean disallowing people who make nasty radio broadcasts? Yes, the paradox of tolerance is a paradox. The only way to keep a tolerant society is to not tolerate the intolerants.

wegfawefgawefg 1y ago

no it doesnt. you could blast "kill your own baby" on radio but 99% of people wouldnt do it. and if they did its their own fault. you either respect the sovereignty of an individual and they are responsible for their actions, or not and if you dont then follow that to its logical conclusion. which would be that all people are not responsible for anything ever, because even the broadcaster was told to by his own life and culture, and so on and so forth until your litigating the first living goo on the planet.

exceptione 1y ago
> "kill your own baby" We are talking about instigating intolerance, with material consequences. Think genocides, like in the OP and Germany in the 30's. > you either respect the sovereignty of an individual and > they are responsible for their actions, Paradox of Tolerance. [0] An individual lives in a society. Waiting for some other country to sacrifice their 18 years old to clean up your mess because you insisted that you couldn't possibly know what happens when you normalize intolerance is not so nice. And maybe there is no country who could possibly help your compatriots to get rid of their autocrats, so be careful if you try. ____ 0. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_tolerance https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_tolerance
- briangriffinfan 1y ago
  It seems there's always a line able to be drawn from a view one disagrees with to the harm that is caused by not contradicting them, and in my experience this does not correlate with how harmful contradiction of the initial view actually is. So with regard to the paradox of tolerance, I would say one needs to establish that their opponent's views are actually sufficiently intolerant to intrinsically be harmful - and this is not something one can always trust to be done without exaggeration.
  - wegfawefgawefg 1y ago
    my personal view is people have a right to be intolerant and hateful and advocate for said intolerance and hate as much as they like. but property crime and assault are not their right. and those are illegal. so we are already covered there.