• 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:
You may have found a website that claims that all slippery slope arguments are fallacies but that doesn't make it so. Educate yourself.
Click to expand...

It doesn't change anything. There is nothing wrong with the slippery slope argument per se, but there is when you try to use it in the way that you are.

YOU are using the slippery slope argument as if each successive movement on the slope is inevitable; that is, if you allow A then it must follow that B will automatically happen, followed by C and D etc

What the slippery slope argument is, is a warning to be vigilant - you are using it as a fallacy by claiming inevitability where none exists.
 
psionl0 said:
You may have found a website that claims that all slippery slope arguments are fallacies but that doesn't make it so. Educate yourself.
Click to expand...

I know how the fallacy works. It applies when one has refrained from showing how A leads to B. You have made no attempt at substantiating this connection. Either do so or concede the argument.
 
Mumbles said:
Notice how psionIO tries to shift from "quite a few Republicans", with clear and obvious examples given, to just "Republicans" as a general target.

I'm not falling for GOB's illusions. Bill Weld, Rick Wilson, Tim Scott, and Marco Rubio, to name a few, would be fine. For that matter, so would Twitter user blackrepublican, who goes into the GOP's racial problems in great detail - a lesson that many republicans desperately need.

But Steve King? Despicable Donald? They're both obviously white supremacists who post white supremacist memes and phrases, so of course they'd get caught up in any effort to ban white supremacists.
Click to expand...

If twitter blocked white supremacists where would the president get his policy advice from?
 
smartcooky said:
What the slippery slope argument is, is a warning to be vigilant - you are using it as a fallacy by claiming inevitability where none exists.
Click to expand...
I'm totally going to steal that. That is well written and concise description of the slippery slope and how and how it should not be used.


ponderingturtle said:
If twitter blocked white supremacists where would the president get his policy advice from?
Click to expand...

jimbob said:
Breitbart, Fox News, and Infowars
Click to expand...
Specifically, Fox and Friends, the version of Fox News produces by a Junior High AV club.
 
Last edited:
https://www.cnn.com/2019/05/02/tech...owars-alex-jones-milo-laura-loomer/index.html
"Facebook bans Louis Farrakhan, Milo Yiannopoulos, InfoWars and others from its platforms as 'dangerous'"
I don't have a problem with this. If this were an ISP, good arguments could be made about not banning and slippery slopes but the entire business model of facebook is curating and moderating content, it isn't a blank slate for content like an ISP is and never has been so excluding racists etc and seems pretty acceptable to me.
 
I like how (for some reason) Farrakhan is brought up as the other side of the coin to these other guys. "If you ban Milo, you gotta ban Louis, too!" - as though that's gonna make leftists hold back.

And then they just got rid of all of them on Facebook. Good all around, I say.
 
I Am The Scum said:
I like how (for some reason) Farrakhan is brought up as the other side of the coin to these other guys. "If you ban Milo, you gotta ban Louis, too!" - as though that's gonna make leftists hold back.

And then they just got rid of all of them on Facebook. Good all around, I say.
Click to expand...
More like if you ban white supremacists, ban black supremacists too. Farrakhan is not left wing as I define the left. He is, however, painted by the GOP as left wing in order to tarnish liberals.

Take this American Spectator article which attempts to paint the left-wing as anti-semitics. Farrakhan, The Left, and Anti-Semitism

He's not a Democratic Party figure, for example. Just where do his beliefs cross over left-wing territory except his hatred of white supremacists?
 
I Am The Scum said:
I like how (for some reason) Farrakhan is brought up as the other side of the coin to these other guys. "If you ban Milo, you gotta ban Louis, too!" - as though that's gonna make leftists hold back.

And then they just got rid of all of them on Facebook. Good all around, I say.
Click to expand...

Well...it's true that Farrakhan has done more good in his life than Milo Alyankovich or Ifnowars' conspiracy theorizing placebo peddlers. He has managed to get high-crime areas under control when police simply refused to do so, as well as providing security for black celebrities when police wouldn't (at this point, black police unions are around to step in when the normal unions and fellowships throw a fit over mild criticisms). People who speak of him fondly usually recall this, and mostly consider his racism and anti-semitism to be all bark and no bite.

However!

Farrakhan's still a hateful SOB who likely had Malcolm X killed for leaving the group, and he's still a conspiracy theorist and a woo peddler who has increasingly strange ties with Scientology. Saying he's done more good than Infowars - that bar isn't low, it doesn't even exist. If he's on the wrong side of an anti-hate policy, then the policy is being applied properly.
 
Relevant, IMHO:

"The Existential Crisis Plaguing Online Extremism Researchers"

https://www.wired.com/story/existential-crisis-plaguing-online-extremism-researchers/

The past decade has been an exercise in dystopian comeuppance to the utopian discourse of the '90s and ‘00s. Consider Gamergate, the Internet Research Agency, fake news, the internet-fueled rise of the so-called alt-right, Pizzagate, QAnon, Elsagate and the ongoing horrors of kids YouTube, Facebook’s role in fanning the flames of genocide, Cambridge Analytica, and so much more.

“In many ways, I think it [the malaise] is a bit about us being let down by something that many of us really truly believed in,” says Marwick. Even those who were more realistic about tech—and foresaw its misuse—are stunned by the extent of the problem, she says. “You have to come to terms with the fact that not only were you wrong, but even the bad consequences that many of us did foretell were nowhere near as bad as the actual consequences that either happened or are going to happen.”
Click to expand...


"Part of the problem, Phillips says, is that most users don’t think about the ramifications of every retweet, or Facebook post, or upvote. Without a sense of communal impact or personal responsibility, it’s increasingly difficult to expect a shift towards less toxic behavior and amplification."

So very much this. Stop engaging with extremist content.
You're:
making each other angry;
earning extremist media ad revenue for reach;
making extremist clickbait "a good investment";
giving extremist organisations visibility.

Be prudent with your engagement.
 
Skeptic Ginger said:
More like if you ban white supremacists, ban black supremacists too. Farrakhan is not left wing as I define the left. He is, however, painted by the GOP as left wing in order to tarnish liberals.

Take this American Spectator article which attempts to paint the left-wing as anti-semitics. Farrakhan, The Left, and Anti-Semitism

He's not a Democratic Party figure, for example. Just where do his beliefs cross over left-wing territory except his hatred of white supremacists?
Click to expand...

A religious extremists who uses others' faith to enrich and empower himself and preaches hate against gays, Jews, the government and thinks women should be subservient to men?

If he was running the Nation of Christianity, the Oval Office would have his number hard wired into speed dial.
 
Orphia Nay said:
Relevant, IMHO:

"The Existential Crisis Plaguing Online Extremism Researchers"

https://www.wired.com/story/existential-crisis-plaguing-online-extremism-researchers/




"Part of the problem, Phillips says, is that most users don’t think about the ramifications of every retweet, or Facebook post, or upvote. Without a sense of communal impact or personal responsibility, it’s increasingly difficult to expect a shift towards less toxic behavior and amplification."

So very much this. Stop engaging with extremist content.
You're:
making each other angry;
earning extremist media ad revenue for reach;
making extremist clickbait "a good investment";
giving extremist organisations visibility.

Be prudent with your engagement.
Click to expand...

Hallelujah! I keep saying this. Don't ignore them, but certainly don't get into it with them.
 
Donal said:
A religious extremists who uses others' faith to enrich and empower himself and preaches hate against gays, Jews, the government and thinks women should be subservient to men?

If he was running the Nation of Christianity, the Oval Office would have his number hard wired into speed dial.
Click to expand...

HOW VERY DARE YOU

Don't be ridiculous.


Unless you are saying he also became white
 
Last edited:
And Trump shows his even further alt-white views by Tweeting about how unfair it is Zuckerberg controls the banning of Jones. It's another move toward Trump's authoritarian wet dream.
 
Skeptic Ginger said:
And Trump shows his even further alt-white views by Tweeting about how unfair it is (((Zuckerberg))) controls the banning of Jones. It's another move toward Trump's authoritarian wet dream.
Click to expand...

Minor suggested correction
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom