Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Strongpoint]

Yes, numbers are more convenient than spaghetti

1. Hate is destructive and irrational. It only produces more hate and suffering. It is a natural emotion to hate back. But rational humans should be able to not be controlled by their emotions and understand that evil and immoral actions against people you hate are still evil and immoral actions.

2. Easier to hate them this way, isn't it? It is also easier to say that all of those are losers and humanity would be better if all those bigots just disappear. That they are incapable of loving and no one loves them. That there are no doctors, scientists, engineers, artists among them... That many of them still do more good than harm.

3. Nobody views fascists as martyrs and protectors... Who and why joins them then? Also, political ideology is a slightly different beast and differed from the ideas of that ideology.


4. Inciting violence is not tolerated and is illegal. But let us be honest, you don't want to limit censorship to that. Phrases like "*insert homophobic slur* are sinful disgusting deviants." don't call for violence but I have no doubts that you want those banned, too. There are also gray areas like Rolan7's comic, which can be interpreted as inciting violence.

Personally, I don't care much about stuff like "You are a servant of Satan, who is beyond redemption and should be executed." because the chances that person actually means it and is ready to act in this way are really, really low.

[MaxTheFox]

Yes, numbers are more convenient than spaghetti

1. Hate is destructive and irrational. It only produces more hate and suffering. It is a natural emotion to hate back. But rational humans should be able to not be controlled by their emotions and understand that evil and immoral actions against people you hate are still evil and immoral actions.

2. Easier to hate them this way, isn't it? It is also easier to say that all of those are losers and humanity would be better if all those bigots just disappear. That they are incapable of loving and no one loves them. That there are no doctors, scientists, engineers, artists among them... That many of them still do more good than harm.

3. Nobody views fascists as martyrs and protectors... Who and why joins them then? Also, political ideology is a slightly different beast and differed from the ideas of that ideology.


4. Inciting violence is not tolerated and is illegal. But let us be honest, you don't want to limit censorship to that. Phrases like "*insert homophobic slur* are sinful disgusting deviants." don't call for violence but I have no doubts that you want those banned, too. There are also gray areas like Rolan7's comic, which can be interpreted as inciting violence.

Personally, I don't care much about stuff like "You are a servant of Satan, who is beyond redemption and should be executed." because the chances that person actually means it and is ready to act in this way are really, really low.

1. But I think it is good for them to suffer. I don't care about rationality. We fundamentally disagree and it is pointless to argue about this.
2. Well it is true that it is insanely hard to convert them. And quit trying to guilt-trip me, I hate them all regardless of who they love or who they are. There are very few of them in such skilled jobs now anyways, or they are good at hiding it in which case I don't really care.
3. People join them because they get misinformed about minorities. This hate eventually entrenches itself and, in many cases, is impossible to dislodge.
4. I'd begrudgingly tolerate that, actually. I'd ban them online if I was an admin, but I wouldn't give them a fine or anything IRL, only because it's an actual slippery slope. Now, "*insert homophobic slur* are sinful disgusting deviants and should be forced into conversion therapy." should be illegal because it incites torture. Also, inciting violence is currently only illegal in many jurisdictions if it leads to actual violence.

[Dunamisdeos]

1. But I think it is good for them to suffer. I don't care about rationality. We fundamentally disagree and it is pointless to argue about this.
2. Well it is true that it is insanely hard to convert them. And quit trying to guilt-trip me, I hate them all regardless of who they love or who they are. There are very few of them in such skilled jobs now anyways, or they are good at hiding it in which case I don't really care.
3. People join them because they get misinformed about God. This hate eventually entrenches itself and, in many cases, is impossible to dislodge.
4. I'd begrudgingly tolerate that, actually. I'd ban them online if I was an admin, but I wouldn't give them a fine or anything IRL, only because it's an actual slippery slope. Now, "*insert homophobic slur* are sinful disgusting deviants and should be forced into conversion therapy." should be illegal because it incites torture. Also, inciting violence is currently only illegal in many jurisdictions if it leads to actual violence.

Wow, I only had to change a single word in your manifesto to make it from a religious bigot talking about LGBTQ who stops just sort of physical torture. Good thing hate is justified as long as someone else hates you back, or else there'd actually be something wrong with the way bigots feel about minorities. Racism = Solved too, I guess.

[Rolan7]

Max and I aren't on exactly the same page, but I'm not going to tone-police someone who's actively being persecuted by the hate groups in question.  There's a lot of scary legislation happening in the USA, and plenty of increasingly emboldened bigots, but significantly less (though not none) mortal danger than I'd experience in Russia.  So I have the luxury of debating or ignoring fascists and keeping a chill tone.

But sorry Dun, that replacement doesn't even technically work (point 4) and it only works at all because she keeps using "they" and "them" instead of spelling it out.  Even if she did spell it out, I still don't agree with your point.  For example:

"I don't want fascists in office"
"I don't want gays in office"
- These statements are very different.  One is prejudice against an inherent trait which has little to do with political office.  The other is justified "prejudice" against a malicious ideology of hate getting more power. 

Spiritually I think it's good to avoid hating people as much as possible, but it's a natural emotion to feel against aggressors.  Love may be a better strategy, much of the time, but sometimes that's a lot to demand of people.

[MaxTheFox]

1. But I think it is good for them to suffer. I don't care about rationality. We fundamentally disagree and it is pointless to argue about this.
2. Well it is true that it is insanely hard to convert them. And quit trying to guilt-trip me, I hate them all regardless of who they love or who they are. There are very few of them in such skilled jobs now anyways, or they are good at hiding it in which case I don't really care.
3. People join them because they get misinformed about God. This hate eventually entrenches itself and, in many cases, is impossible to dislodge.
4. I'd begrudgingly tolerate that, actually. I'd ban them online if I was an admin, but I wouldn't give them a fine or anything IRL, only because it's an actual slippery slope. Now, "*insert homophobic slur* are sinful disgusting deviants and should be forced into conversion therapy." should be illegal because it incites torture. Also, inciting violence is currently only illegal in many jurisdictions if it leads to actual violence.

Wow, I only had to change a single word in your manifesto to make it from a religious bigot talking about LGBTQ who stops just sort of physical torture. Good thing hate is justified as long as someone else hates you back, or else there'd actually be something wrong with the way bigots feel about minorities. Racism = Solved too, I guess.

Again, hate is indeed justified if you are being unrelentingly hated first. Of course you can pretend I hate minorities, but that is simply not true. It's simply fighting back. Basically, what Rolan said. "Prejudice" isn't actually prejudice if they struck first.

[Quarque]

Spiritually I think it's good to avoid hating people as much as possible, but it's a natural emotion to feel against aggressors.

Agree so much. I try not to hate those who bullied me to the point of near-suicide when I was a kid. It's difficult.

As for the paradox of tolerance, well there is no good answer. It is impossible to avoid being intolerant to intolerance. The option to ban people from online platforms is a raw necessity, just as having police and judges is required for a functioning society - although power abuse by police is a danger in itself, much like power abuse by moderators is. Where should you draw the line? I don't know, I'm glad I'm not a moderator.

Anyway, most of all I just hope you guys are doing okay. Much love from an anonymous person on the internets to you all.

[Strongpoint]

BTW, Max what % of Russians do you hate? It is a very homophobic country, after all.

[MaxTheFox]

BTW, Max what % of Russians do you hate? It is a very homophobic country, after all.

Quite a lot, but many are simply hammered by propaganda about gay people and can change with time, so I hate them less.

[King Zultan]

1. I don't want to ignore them, I want them to be silenced. Besides, it's hard to ignore them in places like Twitter.
2. People keep saying this, but Canada has anti-hate-speech laws and isn't an authoritarian hellhole. The slippery slope is an useless fallacy. The law does not need to be objective.

1. Every time I've heard silenced used like that it usually refers to having the people in question disappear, be killed, or have them found after committing suicide in a suspicious way.
2. I read about that law and it seemed very week and hard to get an arrest for, so it sounds like something that's more to make people feel better than to do what it says it does.

But noooo, bad ebil leffist Max wants literally 1984. Muh freeze peach!

This sounds and looks incredibly similar to stuff immature teenagers say


Since everyone involved is deeply entrenched in their stance on the topic of internet Nazis that never seem to do anything outside the internet, I what to know what you think of the actual Nazis from Russia that are currently killing people in the Ukraine and since you've said what you want to happen to the internet Nazis what about the actual ones?

[MaxTheFox]

1. I don't want to ignore them, I want them to be silenced. Besides, it's hard to ignore them in places like Twitter.
2. People keep saying this, but Canada has anti-hate-speech laws and isn't an authoritarian hellhole. The slippery slope is an useless fallacy. The law does not need to be objective.

1. Every time I've heard silenced used like that it usually refers to having the people in question disappear, be killed, or have them found after committing suicide in a suspicious way.
2. I read about that law and it seemed very week and hard to get an arrest for, so it sounds like something that's more to make people feel better than to do what it says it does.

1. Well here it simply means literally being silenced, by being censored.
2. That's why I said it needs to go further.

This sounds and looks incredibly similar to stuff immature teenagers say

It was a mockery of some of the stuff that was said to me.

Since everyone involved is deeply entrenched in their stance on the topic of internet Nazis that never seem to do anything outside the internet, I what to know what you think of the actual Nazis from Russia that are currently killing people in the Ukraine and since you've said what you want to happen to the internet Nazis what about the actual ones?

Kill 'em. Or imprison 'em for life with no possibility of parole.

[Strongpoint]

Speaking about moderators and social networks. here  is a very... hmm... community friendly post in Facebook.

Feel free to Google translate it. In short: It calls to skin Nazies (read Ukrainian POWs) alive in front of their loved ones. Typical hate speech, nothing unusual. What is Important, this thing was reported and several people got the - this post doesn't break Facebook's guidelines.

How does this happen? Easily, the Eastern European segment of Facebook is moderated by... Russians making it a kinda pro-Russian place in informational warfare. Ukrainians are banned as soon as a single letter of rules is broken while getting a hate-spewing Russian banned is a quite hard task.



Corruption of people who make decisions of what is allowed and what is not is one of the reasons why censorship is a bad idea.

[EuchreJack]

It also points out the trouble with banning Nazis is that everyone calls people they don't like Nazis, which means everyone gets banned.

[MaxTheFox]

Speaking about moderators and social networks. here  is a very... hmm... community friendly post in Facebook.

Feel free to Google translate it. In short: It calls to skin Nazies (read Ukrainian POWs) alive in front of their loved ones. Typical hate speech, nothing unusual. What is Important, this thing was reported and several people got the - this post doesn't break Facebook's guidelines.

How does this happen? Easily, the Eastern European segment of Facebook is moderated by... Russians making it a kinda pro-Russian place in informational warfare. Ukrainians are banned as soon as a single letter of rules is broken while getting a hate-spewing Russian banned is a quite hard task.



Corruption of people who make decisions of what is allowed and what is not is one of the reasons why censorship is a bad idea.

The problem is with Russia and Facebook's admins appointing Russian shills, not with censorship in general. It works fine in other regions. Nice cherry picking.

It also points out the trouble with banning Nazis is that everyone calls people they don't like Nazis, which means everyone gets banned.

This would apply if reports were not reviewed by moderators. As long as actual fascists get banned, I'm fine with online censorship. Online free speech is a pile of shit.

[MusicMagician]

I don't get the problem with Twitter...

It's still a social media no matter what, though Facebook also have their problems.

[Il Palazzo]

The problem is with Russia and Facebook's admins appointing Russian shills, not with censorship in general. It works fine in other regions. Nice cherry picking.

That's not cherry picking. That's the whole point of the anti-censorship argument. Or, more generally, of the >liberal< bit in liberal democracy. One shouldn't put in place any systems whose protective coverage is contingent on the current ruling political majority. The system should be a compromise that protects the rights of everyone, regardless of who is in power. Otherwise the 'wrong' people will eventually grab the reins, and use the system to oppress you.