3 ms·

This is a post about why Facebook should remove anti-semitic groups. He doesn't cover the case of a group that is not anti-semitic, but does deny the Holocaust.

This is a post about why Facebook should remove anti-semitic groups. He doesn't cover the case of a group that is not anti-semitic, but does deny the Holocaust. Since his argument is "Holocaust denial correlates strongly with anti-semitism, thus Holocaust denial must be banned," can be simplified to "Anti-semitism must be banned" with, in the worst case, no loss of accuracy, and, in the best case, a reduced rate of false positives.

edw519 17y ago
I sure hope you finish your mental masturbation before the elephant in the room sits on you.
- byrneseyeview 17y ago
  Can you clarify?
  - edw519 17y ago
    "He doesn't cover the case of a group that is not anti-semitic, but does deny the Holocaust." Mental masturbation: Applying logic in a theoretical realm without regard to the real world or the human condition. Elephant in the room: By definition, the outlier you cite cannot exist, since the sole purpose of "Holocaust denial" is to rub salt into Jewish wounds. I have been on this forum forever, have discussed many issues with many of you, and never comment on these types of threads, which frankly do not belong on hn. But since you turned this into a logic play, I took the bait (for which I'm already sorry.) I also see that the ho-hums have arrived and have started to vote me down without providing comments, a perfectly expected outcome. You are churning logic which, based upon my axioms, is illogical. I understand that you may not agree with my axioms, rendering your treatment of the logic as plasible. Please understand that, either way, it doesn't matter. Saying that "Holocaust denial" != "anti-semitism" is not a speed bump; it's a show stopper. For many sensible people, you have effectively disqualified yourself from further logical discussion. I look forward to discussing business & programming with you and all the others in future threads. This is my last posting in this thread (and hopefully all others like it).
    - byrneseyeview 17y ago
      Thank you for explaining. Now, what I don't understand is how you'd cover such a case -- a historian who honestly says "Looking at the record, I think the conventional story of the Holocaust overestimates the death toll, and misunderstands the motivations." At least one former denier (can't recall his name right now) is Jewish; the guy who blogs at http://hooverhog.typepad.com/ http://hooverhog.typepad.com/ is a Holocaust denier (among other unusual beliefs) and has also made references to having a Jewish girlfriend, which I think goes beyond even the usual "some of my best friends are..." argument. Exploring edge cases is generally not mental masturbation. In this situation, there's a genuinely weird argument: "Holocaust denial is synonymous with anti-semitism, and anti-semitism is bad, thus Holocaust denial is bad." If all Holocaust deniers are anti-semites, then this makes as much sense as saying "Anti-semites are more likely to dislike people who celebrate Passover, thus groups opposed to celebrating Passover must be banned." Why the extra mental gymnastics? Why is Holocaust denial even a factor?
    - philwelch 17y ago
      "By definition, the outlier you cite cannot exist, since the sole purpose of "Holocaust denial" is to rub salt into Jewish wounds." I'm glad you have the power of looking into people's souls. Personally, I don't, so I have to remain open to the possibility that some holocaust deniers are just cranks.
ynniv 17y ago
It saddens me that "anti-semitism" is liberally applied to arguments involving people of Jewish descent. If someone makes a personal decision that they haven't been presented with a convincing argument that Jews were specifically targeted by a genocide campaign, they are labeled "anti-semite". If he chooses to make the argument that establishing and defending by force a Jewish state on another country's land might not be fair, he is labeled "anti-semite". It's liberal use in questionable situations weakens its value when properly used to describe someone whose words and actions are specifically negative to those of Jewish descent. I agree with Arrington on this one, but as Mr. Wizard used to say, he is right for the wrong reason. He is right because Facebook should censor hate speech just as they censor questionable images. The target of that hate speech is irrelevant.

edw519 17y ago

I sure hope you finish your mental masturbation before the elephant in the room sits on you.

byrneseyeview 17y ago
Can you clarify?
- edw519 17y ago
  "He doesn't cover the case of a group that is not anti-semitic, but does deny the Holocaust." Mental masturbation: Applying logic in a theoretical realm without regard to the real world or the human condition. Elephant in the room: By definition, the outlier you cite cannot exist, since the sole purpose of "Holocaust denial" is to rub salt into Jewish wounds. I have been on this forum forever, have discussed many issues with many of you, and never comment on these types of threads, which frankly do not belong on hn. But since you turned this into a logic play, I took the bait (for which I'm already sorry.) I also see that the ho-hums have arrived and have started to vote me down without providing comments, a perfectly expected outcome. You are churning logic which, based upon my axioms, is illogical. I understand that you may not agree with my axioms, rendering your treatment of the logic as plasible. Please understand that, either way, it doesn't matter. Saying that "Holocaust denial" != "anti-semitism" is not a speed bump; it's a show stopper. For many sensible people, you have effectively disqualified yourself from further logical discussion. I look forward to discussing business & programming with you and all the others in future threads. This is my last posting in this thread (and hopefully all others like it).
  - byrneseyeview 17y ago
    Thank you for explaining. Now, what I don't understand is how you'd cover such a case -- a historian who honestly says "Looking at the record, I think the conventional story of the Holocaust overestimates the death toll, and misunderstands the motivations." At least one former denier (can't recall his name right now) is Jewish; the guy who blogs at http://hooverhog.typepad.com/ http://hooverhog.typepad.com/ is a Holocaust denier (among other unusual beliefs) and has also made references to having a Jewish girlfriend, which I think goes beyond even the usual "some of my best friends are..." argument. Exploring edge cases is generally not mental masturbation. In this situation, there's a genuinely weird argument: "Holocaust denial is synonymous with anti-semitism, and anti-semitism is bad, thus Holocaust denial is bad." If all Holocaust deniers are anti-semites, then this makes as much sense as saying "Anti-semites are more likely to dislike people who celebrate Passover, thus groups opposed to celebrating Passover must be banned." Why the extra mental gymnastics? Why is Holocaust denial even a factor?
  - philwelch 17y ago
    "By definition, the outlier you cite cannot exist, since the sole purpose of "Holocaust denial" is to rub salt into Jewish wounds." I'm glad you have the power of looking into people's souls. Personally, I don't, so I have to remain open to the possibility that some holocaust deniers are just cranks.

ynniv 17y ago

It saddens me that "anti-semitism" is liberally applied to arguments involving people of Jewish descent. If someone makes a personal decision that they haven't been presented with a convincing argument that Jews were specifically targeted by a genocide campaign, they are labeled "anti-semite". If he chooses to make the argument that establishing and defending by force a Jewish state on another country's land might not be fair, he is labeled "anti-semite". It's liberal use in questionable situations weakens its value when properly used to describe someone whose words and actions are specifically negative to those of Jewish descent. I agree with Arrington on this one, but as Mr. Wizard used to say, he is right for the wrong reason. He is right because Facebook should censor hate speech just as they censor questionable images. The target of that hate speech is irrelevant.