7 ms·

> nothing wrong with pedophilia or nazis

by ryder9 6y ago

jimbob45 6y ago
You’ve got to give people a space to consider both sides of every argument. Better to cordone off that space than have that discussion elsewhere. If you tell someone NEVER GO INTO THE LAST DOOR ON THE THIRD STORY, they’ll endlessly wonder what’s inside. If you show them that it’s your amateur paintings, they’ll never care again.
- dpau 6y ago
  bit of a difference between educating people about nazism vs. giving actual neo-nazis a space to use for communication and recruitment.
- IgorPartola 6y ago
  I don’t need to have a discussion with a guy who beats his wife because he never got help for his PTSD to know it’s wrong. Giving it a platform treats it like a point of view and not a gross fucking crime. I don’t need to talk to a Nazi to know that gassing Jews and gays is wrong. People seem to think that there are some unexplored ideas here that merit further discussion. We have already established that this shit is not what we want. Those in doubt can read accounts of domestic violence victims or a couple of history books to educate themselves.
  - Ar-Curunir 6y ago
    It’s just standard “both sides” crap
    - ccsnags 6y ago
      Bothsidism is a straw man argument designed to present arguments that compare practical effects of different ideologies in bad faith and give rhetoric to people who have no business making the argument in the first place. Dismissing an argument based on rhetorical sophistry is keeping your head in the sand while trying to get others to do the same. It’s reckless.
  - sgillen 6y ago
    You might not need to talk to that guy to know beating his wife was wrong. But talking to him may make you realize he’s in a lot of pain, and that he’s been hurt by a system larger than both of you. That doesn’t absolve him of guilt but I think pragmatically it gives us a better shot at preventing such things in the far future. You don’t have to browse Nazi forums to know that gassing Jews is wrong. But you may start to discover the reasons why these (mostly) young men are so angry, which I posit allows one to do more to prevent the spread of such ideologies.
    - IgorPartola 6y ago
      What you say has a kernel of truth to it, but I think you are thinking of the wrong tool for the job. There was a well studied psychological phenomenon (sorry I can’t recall the name of the researchers at the moment) where if you put people of similar ideology in a room together and let them converse for a period of time, they will come out of that room holding more extreme views than they went in with, down to holding views that are more extreme than the view of their most extreme member going in. This happen every day on Reddit. Take /r/conservative. Theoretically, a great place to get a conservative point of view and discuss how it might clash with something opposite it. In practice, it has become a safe bubble. If you express a strong liberal viewpoint or identify as a liberal, you will get banned. Ask how I know. And at that point why would anyone outside that bubble go visit it, and why would anyone who is there leave? It creates the exact opposite effect of what you are describing. Also, again, I am happy to fund research on why men beat women (or any person of any gender beats any other gender, though let’s face it, most times domestic violence is by men against women), but I don’t need 1000 angry men trying to justify to me and each other why it’s ok. And that’s my point: the web allows us to give voice to those who haven’t been heard before. If a former Nazi wants to explain why he did what he did and why he walked away from it, we should give them voice and listen. If a current incel wants to detail his struggles and ask for help, we should lend an ear. But what help can be given to a man who beats his wife by 1000 men who do the same and think it’s totally justified? What possible good comes of helping them reinforce their beliefs while providing tools to exclude all external points of view? Lastly, yes it is true that some points of view are just wrong. There are in fact bad ideas. Eugenics is a bad idea. Racism is a bad idea. Misogyny is a bad idea. We can let the academics study it and the therapists try to fix it, but we absolutely do not need to entertain it, pretend like there is some valid point of view there, or give it a platform just so someone can turn around, point out that the existence of the platform means there are two sides to the argument and demand more equal representation. If you really want to help, try going on those fringe subreddits and offer to pay for therapy for those young men. If they take you up on that offer, yes you’ve done a good thing. But in my experience you get a nicely worded message from a mod saying that you and your ideas aren’t welcome here. Edit: also, I don’t give a fuck if you are in pain because crushing system, etc. If you beat your wife, you deserve a beating. If you think it’s sometimes justified you deserve two. Don’t make your problems someone else’s pain. It doesn’t make you justified. It just objectively makes you an asshole. Edit 2: Daryl Davis is a black man who has been befriending members of the KKK and successfully convinced over 200 of them to leave. That does not justify the existence of the KKK, just shows how difficult it is to do this kind of work: https://www.npr.org/2017/08/20/544861933/how-one-man-convinced-200-ku-klux-klan-members-to-give-up-their-robes https://www.npr.org/2017/08/20/544861933/how-one-man-convinc...
  - airtonix 6y ago
    And here is where the SpeakWrite machine was given authority to rewrite history in order to satisfy "The Grinning Fox" as Malcom X puts it. If you don't want to talk to those people, then don't. But to stand there and claim to speak for all of us and claim you are the authority on what topics are authorised for discussion is such an disgusting level of narcisistic meglomania that needs to be stamped out. You're just a Totalitarian, and you should be put on a podium along side your historial commrades (and their outcomes) for all to hear and see. This shit has happened before, and many millions were silenced into the siberian wastelands for it.
    - wesammikhail 6y ago
      Nah dude. This time and person is different. Give him the the crown. He will usher in the utopia unlike all of those that preceeded him. He is the moral crusader and bastion of wisdom that we all aspire to be. He knows where to draw the deterministic line, because unlike the rest of us, he knows what what is right and wrong thanks to his divine and unmatched powers and intellect. All hail comrade /u/IgorPartola. /s
    - deleted 6y ago
      [deleted]
    - IgorPartola 6y ago
      I have no idea what I just read but I’m pretty sure that even if it was a cohesive thought that it is incorrect. Look, if you want to spend your time building a platform helping extremist groups communicate and coordinate, go right ahead. I think that’s a bad idea, and yes I am fairly certain I am right. Also, as someone who lived in an actual totalitarian regime, I think I know when I see a bad faith usage of totalitarianism in an argument.
  - concordDance 6y ago
    > We have already established that this shit is not what we want. Ah, yes. "We were wrong about morality all those other times throughout history but THIS time we're right! Forever and ever!" Also, the things being banned are nowhere as far outside the Overton Window as your strawmen.
    - IgorPartola 6y ago
      Sorry, what? Are you really saying that Nazis, racists, and men who beat women have an ideology worth discussing? Seriously?
- zanny 6y ago
  Insert paradox of intolerance here. We want to act like we are purely rational beings, and maybe some of us operate on that level consistently, but those of us that do not, even for a moment, are ripe to have their animal brains taken advantage of for evil.
  - nothal 6y ago
    The paradox of tolerance is an iffy justification. It's an anecdotal testament of someone who survived the Holocaust, IIRC. Not to minimize the Holocaust or any part of it. That said, as far as I've seen, there's no established historical pattern that fascism is a function of societal tolerance of intolerant ideologies.
  - antepodius 6y ago
    That isn't the paradox of tolerance. That's you, the upper-class intelligentia, deciding the fate of the subhuman masses.
- guerrilla 6y ago
  Nobody wonders whats inside the door of pedophilia and nazism. We know. It's well documented.
  - concordDance 6y ago
    Indeed. And it turns out whether pedophilia is harmful is actually controversial. See Rind et al.
    - dabbernaught420 6y ago
      Just make sure your handle isn't tied to your real name.
- brian-armstrong 6y ago
  This is either misinformed or just directly a bad faith argument. Leaving these communities around is, indeed, very much like letting a wound fester. There isn't really any doubt now that people can use platforms to radicalize others to extreme and often dangerous viewpoints. What's being banned is not a rational space for discussion between reasoned gentlemen, it's a place where people escalate emotions and whip each other into a frenzy. They're not banning earnest discussions of World War II history, they're banning "hey let's role play Nazis semi-ironically until one of us flinches and shoots someone in real life."
  - fwn 6y ago
    No. Our parent made a valid argument. The differences between your stance and our parents stance emerge from different world views not from different information levels or a difference in academic rigor. (Or faith!) > There isn't really any doubt now that people can use platforms to radicalize others to extreme and often dangerous viewpoints. What you actually said here ("people can use platforms to radicalize") is true but also trivial. They can use platforms for all kind of things. More broadly: It's neither proven that the possibility of radicalization is a problem related to new technologies nor that censorship is a tool effective in mitigating it. Last but not least there's the philosophical question: it's not even clear that this problem we're perceiving is something that should be mitigated on a technical level. That is very much an ongoing research project and will continue to be for a long time as long as communities continue to adapt to new communication technologies.
  - webmaven 6y ago
    > Leaving these communities around is, indeed, very much like letting a wound fester. There isn't really any doubt now that people can use platforms to radicalize others to extreme and often dangerous viewpoints." Interesting... I don't think I've previously seen the argument that such communities are, in effect, an "attractive nuisance". A similar argument applies to pro-anorexia communities, although the danger there is self-harming behavior.
- eeZah7Ux 6y ago
  > consider both sides of every argument No. Please let's stop with the "both sides" fallacy. This is what the parent poster wrote: >> the worst of the worst: jailbait, creepshots, beatingwomen There is no "argument" being debated here. Only victims being harmed (more) by the sharing of the pictures.
- eeZah7Ux 6y ago
  Example of the "both sides" fallacy: https://i.imgur.com/jdaacRk.jpg https://i.imgur.com/jdaacRk.jpg

> nothing wrong with pedophilia or nazis

by ryder9 6y ago

> nothing wrong with pedophilia or nazis

You’ve got to give people a space to consider both sides of every argument. Better to cordone off that space than have that discussion elsewhere. If you tell someone NEVER GO INTO THE LAST DOOR ON THE THIRD STORY, they’ll endlessly wonder what’s inside. If you show them that it’s your amateur paintings, they’ll never care again.

dpau 6y ago
bit of a difference between educating people about nazism vs. giving actual neo-nazis a space to use for communication and recruitment.
IgorPartola 6y ago
I don’t need to have a discussion with a guy who beats his wife because he never got help for his PTSD to know it’s wrong. Giving it a platform treats it like a point of view and not a gross fucking crime. I don’t need to talk to a Nazi to know that gassing Jews and gays is wrong. People seem to think that there are some unexplored ideas here that merit further discussion. We have already established that this shit is not what we want. Those in doubt can read accounts of domestic violence victims or a couple of history books to educate themselves.
- Ar-Curunir 6y ago
  It’s just standard “both sides” crap
  - ccsnags 6y ago
    Bothsidism is a straw man argument designed to present arguments that compare practical effects of different ideologies in bad faith and give rhetoric to people who have no business making the argument in the first place. Dismissing an argument based on rhetorical sophistry is keeping your head in the sand while trying to get others to do the same. It’s reckless.
- sgillen 6y ago
  You might not need to talk to that guy to know beating his wife was wrong. But talking to him may make you realize he’s in a lot of pain, and that he’s been hurt by a system larger than both of you. That doesn’t absolve him of guilt but I think pragmatically it gives us a better shot at preventing such things in the far future. You don’t have to browse Nazi forums to know that gassing Jews is wrong. But you may start to discover the reasons why these (mostly) young men are so angry, which I posit allows one to do more to prevent the spread of such ideologies.
  - IgorPartola 6y ago
    What you say has a kernel of truth to it, but I think you are thinking of the wrong tool for the job. There was a well studied psychological phenomenon (sorry I can’t recall the name of the researchers at the moment) where if you put people of similar ideology in a room together and let them converse for a period of time, they will come out of that room holding more extreme views than they went in with, down to holding views that are more extreme than the view of their most extreme member going in. This happen every day on Reddit. Take /r/conservative. Theoretically, a great place to get a conservative point of view and discuss how it might clash with something opposite it. In practice, it has become a safe bubble. If you express a strong liberal viewpoint or identify as a liberal, you will get banned. Ask how I know. And at that point why would anyone outside that bubble go visit it, and why would anyone who is there leave? It creates the exact opposite effect of what you are describing. Also, again, I am happy to fund research on why men beat women (or any person of any gender beats any other gender, though let’s face it, most times domestic violence is by men against women), but I don’t need 1000 angry men trying to justify to me and each other why it’s ok. And that’s my point: the web allows us to give voice to those who haven’t been heard before. If a former Nazi wants to explain why he did what he did and why he walked away from it, we should give them voice and listen. If a current incel wants to detail his struggles and ask for help, we should lend an ear. But what help can be given to a man who beats his wife by 1000 men who do the same and think it’s totally justified? What possible good comes of helping them reinforce their beliefs while providing tools to exclude all external points of view? Lastly, yes it is true that some points of view are just wrong. There are in fact bad ideas. Eugenics is a bad idea. Racism is a bad idea. Misogyny is a bad idea. We can let the academics study it and the therapists try to fix it, but we absolutely do not need to entertain it, pretend like there is some valid point of view there, or give it a platform just so someone can turn around, point out that the existence of the platform means there are two sides to the argument and demand more equal representation. If you really want to help, try going on those fringe subreddits and offer to pay for therapy for those young men. If they take you up on that offer, yes you’ve done a good thing. But in my experience you get a nicely worded message from a mod saying that you and your ideas aren’t welcome here. Edit: also, I don’t give a fuck if you are in pain because crushing system, etc. If you beat your wife, you deserve a beating. If you think it’s sometimes justified you deserve two. Don’t make your problems someone else’s pain. It doesn’t make you justified. It just objectively makes you an asshole. Edit 2: Daryl Davis is a black man who has been befriending members of the KKK and successfully convinced over 200 of them to leave. That does not justify the existence of the KKK, just shows how difficult it is to do this kind of work: https://www.npr.org/2017/08/20/544861933/how-one-man-convinced-200-ku-klux-klan-members-to-give-up-their-robes https://www.npr.org/2017/08/20/544861933/how-one-man-convinc...
- airtonix 6y ago
  And here is where the SpeakWrite machine was given authority to rewrite history in order to satisfy "The Grinning Fox" as Malcom X puts it. If you don't want to talk to those people, then don't. But to stand there and claim to speak for all of us and claim you are the authority on what topics are authorised for discussion is such an disgusting level of narcisistic meglomania that needs to be stamped out. You're just a Totalitarian, and you should be put on a podium along side your historial commrades (and their outcomes) for all to hear and see. This shit has happened before, and many millions were silenced into the siberian wastelands for it.
  - wesammikhail 6y ago
    Nah dude. This time and person is different. Give him the the crown. He will usher in the utopia unlike all of those that preceeded him. He is the moral crusader and bastion of wisdom that we all aspire to be. He knows where to draw the deterministic line, because unlike the rest of us, he knows what what is right and wrong thanks to his divine and unmatched powers and intellect. All hail comrade /u/IgorPartola. /s
  - deleted 6y ago
    [deleted]
  - IgorPartola 6y ago
    I have no idea what I just read but I’m pretty sure that even if it was a cohesive thought that it is incorrect. Look, if you want to spend your time building a platform helping extremist groups communicate and coordinate, go right ahead. I think that’s a bad idea, and yes I am fairly certain I am right. Also, as someone who lived in an actual totalitarian regime, I think I know when I see a bad faith usage of totalitarianism in an argument.
- concordDance 6y ago
  > We have already established that this shit is not what we want. Ah, yes. "We were wrong about morality all those other times throughout history but THIS time we're right! Forever and ever!" Also, the things being banned are nowhere as far outside the Overton Window as your strawmen.
  - IgorPartola 6y ago
    Sorry, what? Are you really saying that Nazis, racists, and men who beat women have an ideology worth discussing? Seriously?
zanny 6y ago
Insert paradox of intolerance here. We want to act like we are purely rational beings, and maybe some of us operate on that level consistently, but those of us that do not, even for a moment, are ripe to have their animal brains taken advantage of for evil.
- nothal 6y ago
  The paradox of tolerance is an iffy justification. It's an anecdotal testament of someone who survived the Holocaust, IIRC. Not to minimize the Holocaust or any part of it. That said, as far as I've seen, there's no established historical pattern that fascism is a function of societal tolerance of intolerant ideologies.
- antepodius 6y ago
  That isn't the paradox of tolerance. That's you, the upper-class intelligentia, deciding the fate of the subhuman masses.
guerrilla 6y ago
Nobody wonders whats inside the door of pedophilia and nazism. We know. It's well documented.
- concordDance 6y ago
  Indeed. And it turns out whether pedophilia is harmful is actually controversial. See Rind et al.
  - dabbernaught420 6y ago
    Just make sure your handle isn't tied to your real name.
brian-armstrong 6y ago
This is either misinformed or just directly a bad faith argument. Leaving these communities around is, indeed, very much like letting a wound fester. There isn't really any doubt now that people can use platforms to radicalize others to extreme and often dangerous viewpoints. What's being banned is not a rational space for discussion between reasoned gentlemen, it's a place where people escalate emotions and whip each other into a frenzy. They're not banning earnest discussions of World War II history, they're banning "hey let's role play Nazis semi-ironically until one of us flinches and shoots someone in real life."
- fwn 6y ago
  No. Our parent made a valid argument. The differences between your stance and our parents stance emerge from different world views not from different information levels or a difference in academic rigor. (Or faith!) > There isn't really any doubt now that people can use platforms to radicalize others to extreme and often dangerous viewpoints. What you actually said here ("people can use platforms to radicalize") is true but also trivial. They can use platforms for all kind of things. More broadly: It's neither proven that the possibility of radicalization is a problem related to new technologies nor that censorship is a tool effective in mitigating it. Last but not least there's the philosophical question: it's not even clear that this problem we're perceiving is something that should be mitigated on a technical level. That is very much an ongoing research project and will continue to be for a long time as long as communities continue to adapt to new communication technologies.
- webmaven 6y ago
  > Leaving these communities around is, indeed, very much like letting a wound fester. There isn't really any doubt now that people can use platforms to radicalize others to extreme and often dangerous viewpoints." Interesting... I don't think I've previously seen the argument that such communities are, in effect, an "attractive nuisance". A similar argument applies to pro-anorexia communities, although the danger there is self-harming behavior.
eeZah7Ux 6y ago
> consider both sides of every argument No. Please let's stop with the "both sides" fallacy. This is what the parent poster wrote: >> the worst of the worst: jailbait, creepshots, beatingwomen There is no "argument" being debated here. Only victims being harmed (more) by the sharing of the pictures.
eeZah7Ux 6y ago
Example of the "both sides" fallacy: https://i.imgur.com/jdaacRk.jpg https://i.imgur.com/jdaacRk.jpg