• 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

Dani said:
I had to look that up, because I read Popper many years ago.

Popper's argument makes logical sense as long as you define intolerance as a monolithic concept. But it isn't. There are different degrees of intolerance: the type of intolerance that, like Popper, I would not tolerate, would be the one that calls to action based on a denial of other people's moral agency and autonomy.

Bad ideas should be challenged intellectually, not through censorship. If, for example, racism is intellectually untenable (which is, in different ways), society benefits more by challenging it rather than censoring it.
Click to expand...

This was very much my opinion until recently.

But a lie can spread far and wide and be impossible to counter for honest debaters.

Please consider that most people still remember Marie Antoinette for 'Let them eat cake'. A made-up quote spread through politically extremist pamphlets. Fake news to drum up hatred and facilitate the extermination of a social class.

Now, it would bother me if certain topics were completely purged. Mass-immigration, for instance, is an issue that cannot be buried and public discussion must be made possible.

I've noticed that any complicated topic has a sensationalist 'the experts are wrong' ******* insane Alex Jones take. And that sensationalist take will get more eyeballs than the boring academic version.

If you search for painless suicide methods on Google, the first page is filled with suicide help-lines, websites that urge you to get help etc.

I think similar things happen when you search for Isis propaganda. providing information that helps with deradicalisation.

Lots of people are stuck in an information tunnel, going deeper and deeper down the rabbit hole. I was once a borderline truther, I've had a taste of what that's like.

Lets be fair here, how many slick, short explainer videos are there of how the banking industry worked before the Fed? Do people know about banks going bankrupt all the time? The bank-runs? The complete loss of savings when that happened? Any primer on how the money distribution system is supposed to guard against hyperinflation? Instead, you get stories about how the Federal Reserve isn't federal, isn't a reserve and is secretly owned by the Jews. Did I say Jews? Sorry, I meant the Rothschilds.

Any good punchy explainer videos about what life was like before vaccines?

Any convincing footage of the earth not being flat? OK, there's no saving those people.

Sixty-one per cent of Americans believes in some kind of JFK conspiracy.

Left unchecked, anti-Vax, Holocaust denial, Pizza-gate, creationism etc have a huge potential to convince a significant percentage of the population and that will have real-world effects.

At the very least platforms have to change the show-what-gets-the most-eyeballs algorithm. BS should be muted instead of promoted.

If not, the future is Donald Trump, Brexit and measles.
 
Eddie Dane said:
Lets be fair here, how many slick, short explainer videos are there of how the banking industry worked before the Fed? Do people know about banks going bankrupt all the time? The bank-runs? The complete loss of savings when that happened? Any primer on how the money distribution system is supposed to guard against hyperinflation? Instead, you get stories about how the Federal Reserve isn't federal, isn't a reserve and is secretly owned by the Jews. Did I say Jews? Sorry, I meant the Rothschilds.
Click to expand...
If that is an example of what you want to see banned then we would have to get rid of the entire CT secion (and probably the religious section as well).

You would only be giving weight to the notion that there is a conspiracy to stop the truth from getting out.
 
Eddie Dane said:
This was very much my opinion until recently.

But a lie can spread far and wide and be impossible to counter for honest debaters.

Please consider that most people still remember Marie Antoinette for 'Let them eat cake'. A made-up quote spread through politically extremist pamphlets. Fake news to drum up hatred and facilitate the extermination of a social class.

Now, it would bother me if certain topics were completely purged. Mass-immigration, for instance, is an issue that cannot be buried and public discussion must be made possible.

I've noticed that any complicated topic has a sensationalist 'the experts are wrong' ******* insane Alex Jones take. And that sensationalist take will get more eyeballs than the boring academic version.

If you search for painless suicide methods on Google, the first page is filled with suicide help-lines, websites that urge you to get help etc.

I think similar things happen when you search for Isis propaganda. providing information that helps with deradicalisation.

Lots of people are stuck in an information tunnel, going deeper and deeper down the rabbit hole. I was once a borderline truther, I've had a taste of what that's like.

Lets be fair here, how many slick, short explainer videos are there of how the banking industry worked before the Fed? Do people know about banks going bankrupt all the time? The bank-runs? The complete loss of savings when that happened? Any primer on how the money distribution system is supposed to guard against hyperinflation? Instead, you get stories about how the Federal Reserve isn't federal, isn't a reserve and is secretly owned by the Jews. Did I say Jews? Sorry, I meant the Rothschilds.

Any good punchy explainer videos about what life was like before vaccines?

Any convincing footage of the earth not being flat? OK, there's no saving those people.

Sixty-one per cent of Americans believes in some kind of JFK conspiracy.

Left unchecked, anti-Vax, Holocaust denial, Pizza-gate, creationism etc have a huge potential to convince a significant percentage of the population and that will have real-world effects.

At the very least platforms have to change the show-what-gets-the most-eyeballs algorithm. BS should be muted instead of promoted.

If not, the future is Donald Trump, Brexit and measles.
Click to expand...

I read somewhere that when a search was made for "white supremacy" or somesuch on Facebook, they directed the user to Life After Hate's Facebook page.

That's neat.
 
Dani said:
Bad ideas should be challenged intellectually, not through censorship. If, for example, racism is intellectually untenable (which is, in different ways), society benefits more by challenging it rather than censoring it.
Click to expand...

Do you have any evidence of racists changing their minds when presented with information counter to their feelings of racism? I can't say I've ever heard of your plan working before.
 
wareyin said:
Do you have any evidence of racists changing their minds when presented with information counter to their feelings of racism? I can't say I've ever heard of your plan working before.
Click to expand...

White supremacists have taken a page out of the creationist handbook.

The scientist comes up with science stuff, the supremacist counters with a bombardment of stuff that sounds like science. Lay people side with the one who produced the greatest quantity of science-sounding terms uttered with the greatest degree of passion.

For a fun experiment, go to Twitter and start a conversation with Stephan Moliniuex (sp?) about race and IQ and see how far you get.
 
Eddie Dane said:
White supremacists have taken a page out of the creationist handbook.

The scientist comes up with science stuff, the supremacist counters with a bombardment of stuff that sounds like science. Lay people side with the one who produced the greatest quantity of science-sounding terms uttered with the greatest degree of passion.

For a fun experiment, go to Twitter and start a conversation with Stephan Moliniuex (sp?) about race and IQ and see how far you get.
Click to expand...

Attempting to reason people out of positions that they didn't use reason to take doesn't have a strong record of success, notably with creationists and white supremacists both.
 
Dani said:
Bad ideas should be challenged intellectually, not through censorship. If, for example, racism is intellectually untenable (which is, in different ways), society benefits more by challenging it rather than censoring it.
Click to expand...

These two things are not in conflict. You can still challenge Alex Jones' views even if he's banned from Youtube, Twitter, and Facebook.
 
uke2se said:
I read somewhere that when a search was made for "white supremacy" or somesuch on Facebook, they directed the user to Life After Hate's Facebook page.

That's neat.
Click to expand...

That just makes sense the groups know better than to brand themselves as such. How about just white pride instead of supremacy?
 
Stout said:
I hadn't heard of most of these people either so I started going through the list. I gave up when I found out Jonny Moseley was disinvited as a commencement speaker at Berkley because he dropped out of college, in 2002.

And Dawkins ?

He's not on the left, the left hates him because he's "Islamophobic" He used to be on the left but the left turned on him like he was rabid. Disinvited from a speakers conference for reposting the Islam vs feminism video, disinvited by a radio station for Islamobhobia....Then there was that gays for Islam-Islam for gays tweet.

Disinvitation Database


Using that database, it certainly looks like an awful lot of the *we don't think you should have access to certain ideas and information because they're bad ideas and information and you're not to be trusted with them* is coming form the left.
Click to expand...
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.
 
wareyin said:
Changing racist's minds won't benefit society? Why not?
Click to expand...
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.
 
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...

Well, we could remove the racist from society to get the same benefit.
 
psionl0 said:
Yeah. Locking up people who's views are considered racist is a real benefit to society. :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

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.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom