Freedom of Speech and the recent unpleasantness

Post Reply New Topic

You mean like Facebook and Twitter where things like QAnon conspiracies were propagated? What were the moderating influences exactly?

I believe Pepe, actually, was a recipient of that bias.

And yet, when something comes up in the news related to an incident between 2 people (or groups) of different races, it is those on the left who tend to focus on the race(s) of those involved, while others (Conservative and centrists) tend to focus on the actual events and facts regarding them - And are then accused of being racists because they were ignoring the race(s) of those involved...

I know, but I remember when I was in school there was a lot of antiGerman sentiment carried by teachers. In 2021 I doubt there is anyone alive who can remember WWII.

Do you have 2 accounts. I was asking someone else.

Is it like those embracing partisan politics aren't aware they are engaging in groupthink?

Well, at the other end, you also had the groups pushing "Russiagate"...

By "moderating influences", I was referring to those on the site having access to sources of information on the site from a range of political views, allowing for a more rounded" understanding, and the capacity to see\hear what others say.

Pushing a group off a site and so causing them to create their own bubble rather than embracing them as members of the community (however misguided you may believe them) not only results in their being exposed to the views of others outside their "bubble", it also results in the community fragmenting, so that those outside this "bubble" have no contact, and so no understanding, of what this group believes, nor the reason for those beliefs.

As an example, you have Mr Trump, who was a symptom of the treatment many people felt they had been experiencing, rather than a cause for the movement who supported him - He just gave voice to what a (surprisingly to some) large number of people felt. Silencing\alienating\persecuting him, or those from his movement (for example), isn't going to make them feel any motivation\see any reason to change their views, and will instead be more likelty to reinforce their belief that they were right, either leading to a return of Mr Trump in 4 years, or someone "worse" taking the lead of the movement. On the other hand, accepting them, and seeking discussion with them to find the cause for their joining the movement (not relying on what people from outside the movement claim are the reasons), and seeking to work with them as "equals" (instead of treating them as outcasts) would do a lot go help society as a whole.

So we are all racist/sexist but the majority of people have great filters?
We'll just have to disagree on that then. I have no science to back up my claim , it's more of a gut feeling.

This seems to be the road we're heading down. Since many of the German people at the time liked the Nazi ideology, and were opposed to communism, they supported these restrictions on their own freedoms. That's what I see on this site. In this scenario, Trump supporters are akin to the communists; most people here are comparable to the nazis - since they don't like the politics of the other side (those dangerous a$$holes), they're all for the government silencing and censuring anyone who doesn't agree with the trending political doctrine.

And I'm one of those Germans who's wary of either side and seeing my liberties slowly eroded away. But in nazi Germany, I'd automatically be labeled a communist even though I'm not. Here, I'm automatically labeled a dangerous Trump supporter.

It's really strange seeing it play out before me, especially on a site for people who have been disenfranchised by the majority of the population all their life. Amazing how quick most are to group-think (even Aspies).

I'm posting in defense the universal right of free speech in a democratic society. It's one of the inheritances of our current social order, not shared amongst other countries and their historical development.

That looks like some kind of Anecdotal Fallacy to me. "This fallacy is when someone bases an argument on anecdotal evidence. They will use personal experiences as evidence to back up their claims."

Plus another thing that comes to mind is the incomplete evidence fallacy or "Cherry picking", "the fallacy of incomplete evidence is the act of pointing to individual cases or data that seem to confirm a particular position while ignoring a significant portion of related and similar cases or data that may contradict that position."

I'm convinced now that when it comes to politics, WP is effectively devolved into just an echo-chamber for "left=well meaning, right=dangerous lunatic".

Well, I'm pretty convinced of it, for one.

Assuming they were 5 years old when the war started (and so 10-11 when it ended), they would be in their mid 80's now, so it is not unlikely that there would be a sizable number of people who could remember it...Even someone born at the start of the war would be around 80 now, and would likely remember at least some of the war, being 5-6 when it ended.

The argument to curb free expression revolves around the slippery slope argument or if you let them take a piece you just started the inevitable process of them taken the whole thing. In the current context if we allow hate speech Nazi rule will follow.

There is a slippery slope argument that goes the other way. It is based on a speech given by Martin Niemöller a German Lutheren paster, versions of it are displayed in various Holocaust museums.

At this point we are not speaking of the government literally taking you away but losing your ability to be employed, get bank loans if you hold certain views.
Whom except for white supremacists feels sorry for white supremacists losing these things? Not me.

First they muzzled those whom openly supported the insurrection, I did not mind those f*****s are traitors.
Then they muzzled those that said the election was stolen, I did not mind they directly inspired traitors.
Then they muzzled Trump supporters, I did not mind, while they might not have supported they way Trump comported himself or that the election was stolen they were complicit.
Then they muzzled conservatives, I did not mind some of their ideas morphed into Trumpism, why let that danger still be out there?
Then they muzzled me because I agreed with some things conservatives agree with. NOW I minded. There were people who would like to speak for me but the is price too high to be associated with “hate speech”. Boo-Hoo.

The problems with slippery slope are 1. It does not come to fruition plenty of times 2. Even when it does it often is not the disaster envisioned making you look like a hysteric 3. And yeah, bigots hide behind it a lot.

OTOH it happens way too often to dismiss it as “nothing to see there”. Even if as usual when the worst case scenario does not happen avoidable bad things do.

What it comes down to is judgement of an individual situation, fraught predicting the future. What concerns me about slippery slope now is a lot of the current push is based on emotion and those using emotion for profit. Facebook has made billions manipulating emotion, now they are suddenly woke?

Also concerning is as noted above is lack of understanding of the basics of free speech due to the deemphasis of civics education.

There is and old saying “the price of freedom”. It was about mass sacrifice, of life and limb in wartime. What is being asked for and increasingly rejected is a price while is often very painful is considerably less.

The right wing have their own echo chambers too.