• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Facebook bans far right groups

psionl0 said:
The original quote was "society benefits more by challenging it rather than censoring it".

To suggest that society benefits only if the racist's mind is changed is not only a non-sequitur, it is ridiculous.
Click to expand...

Yes, it is ridiculous. Good thing that was never the claim, nor even the suggestion.

Here on planet reality, the point was that society didn't make progress on racism by "intellectually challenging" it.
 
ahhell said:
While I tend to think that is the case, keep in mind that FIRE and I share a bias in that regard, they may be less likely to notice cases of lefty speakers being disinvited. I'd take there list with a grain of salt in that regard.
Click to expand...

I'd be open to something less biased for sure. I couldn't find anything else and when I started going through the names on that unsourced list upthread with the word disinvited tagged on at the end, my results kept coming back to that page.

There is an opportunity to add to that list and if you have any examples of lefty speakers being disinvited due to pressures from the right then you're free to submit them.
 
uke2se said:
It sure would be. Those of us able to share and live in peace would be better off for sure.

But I'm not talking about necessarily locking them up. What we need is a final solution to the racist question.
Click to expand...

Wait what ?

Are you actually advocating, for or trying to incite mass murder here ?
 
uke2se said:
It sure would be. Those of us able to share and live in peace would be better off for sure.

But I'm not talking about necessarily locking them up. What we need is a final solution to the racist question.
Click to expand...



Not making racism the top search result is a good start and countering those ideas with good information is a good next step.

I fell for the JFK conspiracy crap because -as a 14-year-old- I saw a documentary on TV that 'proved' it impossible to fire that type of rifle x times in Y timeframe.

All I needed was someone demonstrating very clearly that you can fire that rifle X times in Y timeframe.

Boom. Deprogrammed.

Thing is, I HAD reasoned myself into that position so I could reason myself out.

It's not just racism. If you knew nothing of economics and started searching for what to do with your savings, you'd be hit lots and lots of economic doom porn and in two days you'd be buying gold bars.
There are GREAT personal finance channels on Youtube, but people are just more likely to click on 'EXPERTS SAY; FINANCIAL CRISIS IN 2019' than 'How to diversify your portfolio'.

EDIT: oh, and mass-murder bad, Mmmkay?
 
Last edited:
psionl0 said:
I don't believe you.

You clearly thought that the goal of challenging racist views was to change the racists' minds.
Click to expand...

Whenever you'd like to discuss what I said, especially in the context of humanity's actual history of dealing with this stuff, that'd be nice.

Until then, what sort of intellectual challenge do you propose to engage in majority racist societies in order to benefit them?
 
Eddie Dane said:
Thing is, I HAD reasoned myself into that position so I could reason myself out.
Click to expand...


And that's the key problem with irrational beliefs like racism, conspiracy theories, religious fanaticism, and so on. I've grown up most of my life in religious-right communities, and have seen personally just how resistant those beliefs are to reason and education.

Whenever one tries to counter them with science, it's the science that's wrong (Jewish science, Secular/Ungodly science, etc.). The "True" science is always on their side, everything else is a lie. And so on, and so on. Emotions are the only thing that convinces them, and they always have a justification for their prejudices. God said it, "it's just common sense", personal experience (post-hoc fallacy), appeal to authority, and so on. There is always a reason why their beliefs are right, and yours are not only wrong, but evil.

Just listen to any Trump voter, especially his Evangelical voter base, on the subject of Trumps many lies, his cheating, and his racism. There is nothing that they cannot deny or spin to fit their prejudices and preferences. Even when it's clear that they've been royally screwed over by his policies, it's never his policies that are the problem, there is always someone else to blame.
 
wareyin said:
Whenever you'd like to discuss what I said, especially in the context of humanity's actual history of dealing with this stuff, that'd be nice.

Until then, what sort of intellectual challenge do you propose to engage in majority racist societies in order to benefit them?
Click to expand...
I'm not sure that I understand this modified view.

Is it your contention that once racists have put forth their poisonous arguments, that their effect on the public can't be mitigated by countering those arguments?
 
luchog said:
God said it, "it's just common sense", personal experience (post-hoc fallacy), appeal to authority, and so on. There is always a reason why their beliefs are right, and yours are not only wrong, but evil.
Click to expand...

For believers, everything is what it is and the way it is because goddidit.

If you're being honest, you will understand that such beliefs are just one, massive, all-encompassing appeal to authority!
 
Last edited:
psionl0 said:
I'm not sure that I understand this modified view.

Is it your contention that once racists have put forth their poisonous arguments, that their effect on the public can't be mitigated by countering those arguments?
Click to expand...

I think I might see where your confusion lies. Do you think that racists confine their actions to only making public arguments, and not acting on their racist views?
 
wareyin said:
I think I might see where your confusion lies. Do you think that racists confine their actions to only making public arguments, and not acting on their racist views?
Click to expand...

I think it's probably a bad idea to treat speech as if it is the same as the acts that we imagine might accompany the speech.

If you want to prosecute racist acts, then you should probably wait until there are actually acts to prosecute. Prosecuting hypothetical acts on the basis of speech alone seems like a really bad idea.

And that's not even getting into the fact that none of the "nazis" under discussion have even spoken about the acts they've been assaulted for.

Whatever tenuous and creepy-ass connection you're trying to make between speech and act, to justify your own support of political violence, you still haven't even proven the speech itself.
 
theprestige said:
I think it's probably a bad idea to treat speech as if it is the same as the acts that we imagine might accompany the speech.

If you want to prosecute racist acts, then you should probably wait until there are actually acts to prosecute. Prosecuting hypothetical acts on the basis of speech alone seems like a really bad idea.

And that's not even getting into the fact that none of the "nazis" under discussion have even spoken about the acts they've been assaulted for.

Whatever tenuous and creepy-ass connection you're trying to make between speech and act, to justify your own support of political violence, you still haven't even proven the speech itself.
Click to expand...
Is there not something to be said for trying to prevent such acts from happening in the first place? Especially when such acts may result in the deaths of many innocent people?

Do we always have to cure, rather than prevent?
 
arthwollipot said:
Is there not something to be said for trying to prevent such acts from happening in the first place? Especially when such acts may result in the deaths of many innocent people?
Click to expand...
smartcooky said:
What a great plan.

Shut the stable door after the horse has escaped!
Click to expand...
FINALLY! The truth comes out.

This is not about simply denying racists a platform on Facebook. This is about thought crime. It is about prosecuting people for things they might do.
 
psionl0 said:
FINALLY! The truth comes out.

This is not about simply denying racists a platform on Facebook. This is about thought crime. It is about prosecuting people for things they might do.
Click to expand...
Oh, nice hyperbole.

If you had knowledge that someone was going to blow up a bridge during peak traffic, you'd attempt to stop them from doing that. You don't wait until after it's exploded. That would be horrible.

Similarly, if someone says that they're going to assassinate a political leader, you'd try to stop that. If someone is giving a speech in which they call for a riot, you'd try to stop that. If someone has given speeches previously in which they called for a riot, and they were booked to speak this afternoon, and it's likely that they're going to call for a riot again, you'd try to stop that.
 
arthwollipot said:
If you had knowledge that someone was going to blow up a bridge during peak traffic, you'd attempt to stop them from doing that. You don't wait until after it's exploded. That would be horrible.
Click to expand...
Er .... in case you have forgotten, we already have laws against conspiracy to commit acts of terror.

The difference is that there still needs to be credible evidence before would be terrorists can be charged. Evidence would include things like meetings or internet chatter where the details are hashed out or attempts to purchase materials used to make explosives.

In your Orwellian world, a post in Facebook or Twitter saying "Somebody should blow up Sydney Harbour Bridge" would be sufficient to detain the author.
 
psionl0 said:
Er .... in case you have forgotten, we already have laws against conspiracy to commit acts of terror.

The difference is that there still needs to be credible evidence before would be terrorists can be charged. Evidence would include things like meetings or internet chatter where the details are hashed out or attempts to purchase materials used to make explosives.

In your Orwellian world, a post in Facebook or Twitter saying "Somebody should blow up Sydney Harbour Bridge" would be sufficient to detain the author.
Click to expand...
Really? Please point out where I said that or anything like it. Of course you need credible evidence. What you say you think I think is dumb. I don't think you really think I think that.
 
arthwollipot said:
Really? Please point out where I said that or anything like it. Of course you need credible evidence. What you say you think I think is dumb. I don't think you really think I think that.
Click to expand...
If you don't think that then you only have yourself to blame if others don't get that impression.

You reacted to the statement "Prosecuting hypothetical acts on the basis of speech alone seems like a really bad idea" and implied that it wasn't a bad idea.
 
psionl0 said:
If you don't think that then you only have yourself to blame if others don't get that impression.

You reacted to the statement "Prosecuting hypothetical acts on the basis of speech alone seems like a really bad idea" and implied that it wasn't a bad idea.
Click to expand...
I reacted to a whole post, not one single sentence.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom