3 ms·

I read it enough to get to the defense of Bircherism.

by pjc50 11mo ago

j16sdiz 11mo ago
Removing Trump from Twitter didn't stop people from voting him. Removing 60 Minutes from CBS doesn't stop people like you from on elsewhere. Instead, it fuel them to post elsewhere. Deplatforming didn't work, and deplatforming doesn't work now.
- deleted 11mo ago
  [deleted]
- pjc50 11mo ago
  What I'm saying is that this is a survivor effect: there are plenty of cases where deplatforming does work, it's just not 100% effective and so we have this situation like antibiotic resistance where pathologies have evolved around the defenses. It's kind of incredible that viruses have managed to evolve around vaccines to install a pro-virus person at the top of the US department of health to ensure better spread of viruses, but I guess life finds a way. Also: this is entirely anglocentric. I don't think you'd find anyone claiming that the Chinese government censorship system backfired or is completely ineffective. It's an even stronger system than billionaires over there.
  - 1123581321 11mo ago
    That wasn’t what you were saying but they’re good observations. This behavior of Americans was observed by Tocqueville’s observations about newspapers and the role that discussing them played in our political outcomes in allowing certain types of populist candidates to bubble up. There are analogues in English politics. The article had a continental example but it was just an analogy. That said, it’s reasonable for Americans to want to understand and adjust their strategies for quirks in their culture and political process; they can’t simply transplant Chinese government and culture here to please you, can they?
ch4s3 11mo ago
They literally aren't defending Bircherism ,they say that it would have been more productive to argue against them in public to discredit their ideas rather than letting them fester off in some dark corner. They're talking about how pushing bad ideas out of public view rather than arguing against them can exacerbate negative polarization and draw more people into bad ideas. You have completely missed the point of the article. So you didn't actually read the article and you're making a dumb claim based on a misunderstanding.
- pjc50 11mo ago
  Why do I never hear the "it would be better to let pornography onto major platforms so people could debate against it in the comments" argument?
  - ch4s3 11mo ago
    So you still didn't read the article and you're changing the subject to cover for the fact that you made up that the article defends bircherism. Nice attempt at a deflection, but you're still reacting to something you didn't read based on basically just the headline.
  - dpark 11mo ago
    He didn’t say the article is correct. He said that arguing against the article without reading it is dumb.
    - ch4s3 11mo ago
      I'm saying both that it is correct and the other poster should read it or move on.
- bryanlarsen 11mo ago
  > ,they say that it would have been more productive to argue against them in public to discredit their ideas rather than letting them fester off in some dark corner. That doesn't work very well either. There are countless examples like the anti-vax nonsense. I'll agree with the statement that deplatforming doesn't work very well. But it could work better than the alternatives in some cases.

I read it enough to get to the defense of Bircherism.

by pjc50 11mo ago

I read it enough to get to the defense of Bircherism.

Removing Trump from Twitter didn't stop people from voting him. Removing 60 Minutes from CBS doesn't stop people like you from on elsewhere. Instead, it fuel them to post elsewhere. Deplatforming didn't work, and deplatforming doesn't work now.

deleted 11mo ago
[deleted]
pjc50 11mo ago
What I'm saying is that this is a survivor effect: there are plenty of cases where deplatforming does work, it's just not 100% effective and so we have this situation like antibiotic resistance where pathologies have evolved around the defenses. It's kind of incredible that viruses have managed to evolve around vaccines to install a pro-virus person at the top of the US department of health to ensure better spread of viruses, but I guess life finds a way. Also: this is entirely anglocentric. I don't think you'd find anyone claiming that the Chinese government censorship system backfired or is completely ineffective. It's an even stronger system than billionaires over there.
- 1123581321 11mo ago
  That wasn’t what you were saying but they’re good observations. This behavior of Americans was observed by Tocqueville’s observations about newspapers and the role that discussing them played in our political outcomes in allowing certain types of populist candidates to bubble up. There are analogues in English politics. The article had a continental example but it was just an analogy. That said, it’s reasonable for Americans to want to understand and adjust their strategies for quirks in their culture and political process; they can’t simply transplant Chinese government and culture here to please you, can they?

ch4s3 11mo ago

They literally aren't defending Bircherism ,they say that it would have been more productive to argue against them in public to discredit their ideas rather than letting them fester off in some dark corner. They're talking about how pushing bad ideas out of public view rather than arguing against them can exacerbate negative polarization and draw more people into bad ideas. You have completely missed the point of the article. So you didn't actually read the article and you're making a dumb claim based on a misunderstanding.

pjc50 11mo ago
Why do I never hear the "it would be better to let pornography onto major platforms so people could debate against it in the comments" argument?
- ch4s3 11mo ago
  So you still didn't read the article and you're changing the subject to cover for the fact that you made up that the article defends bircherism. Nice attempt at a deflection, but you're still reacting to something you didn't read based on basically just the headline.
- dpark 11mo ago
  He didn’t say the article is correct. He said that arguing against the article without reading it is dumb.
  - ch4s3 11mo ago
    I'm saying both that it is correct and the other poster should read it or move on.
bryanlarsen 11mo ago
> ,they say that it would have been more productive to argue against them in public to discredit their ideas rather than letting them fester off in some dark corner. That doesn't work very well either. There are countless examples like the anti-vax nonsense. I'll agree with the statement that deplatforming doesn't work very well. But it could work better than the alternatives in some cases.