ISF Logo   IS Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Mark Forums Read Help

Go Back   International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Social Issues & Current Events
 


Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.
Reply
Old 2nd July 2020, 09:10 AM   #281
Darat
Lackey
Administrator
 
Darat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: South East, UK
Posts: 92,223
Originally Posted by d4m10n View Post
Comparing outcomes w/ outcomes is comparing like with like. Both fascism and communism, in practice, resulted in murderously intolerant regimes. That should be enough to invoke "the paradox of tolerance" if it's to be our guiding principle as to what sorts of political speech should be permitted in a liberal democracy.
We shall have to disagree, that ideologies fail in the real world shouldn't be a point of contention to anyone, it doesn't matter what the ideology is it will fail. This is because they are crap models of how humans actually behave, all that we see when we see a claim that a particular ideology has been implemented is a name, a label - do we consider all "democracies" flawed because of North Korea? No we don't, we say it isn't a "real" democracy because it doesn't follow the principles of the ideology called "democracy".

Another example is the old USSR, it was never a communist country because it didn't in the end follow the principles of "communism" no matter how much it shouted it did.

If you self-identify as a communist you are not saying you want to kill millions of your fellow citizens, because that is not a fundamental part of being a communist.

Nazism the ideology defined by its principles is to kill its fellow citizens, the fact when the Nazi's last gained power they implemented killing millions was because that was what the principles of Nazism held. Nazism will always fail to work as claimed - like all ideologies - but killing millions is one of its principles.


Originally Posted by d4m10n View Post
It's easy enough for latter-day white nationalists to leave out the bits about the death camps and pogroms from their statements of principles. (Heck, I'd be willing to wager that a minority of the groups who gathered at Unite the RightWP left those bits in.) We can nevertheless say with reasonable confidence that they would not tolerate opposing views on race relations, once given the opportunity to create the ethnostate they fervently desire.

...snip...
I'm only talking here about the subgroup that are Nazis, I don't think all "white nationalists" are Nazis. If you self-identify as a Nazi you are saying you want to kill millions of your fellow citizens, that's a fundamental part of being a Nazi.
__________________
I wish I knew how to quit you

Last edited by Darat; 2nd July 2020 at 09:17 AM. Reason: letters
Darat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd July 2020, 09:15 AM   #282
pharphis
Master Poster
 
Join Date: Feb 2014
Posts: 2,134
Originally Posted by rdwight View Post
I find this outlook weird, because I've seen the same kind of rhetoric from some on the right when it comes to subjects like wrongful imprisionment, arrest, or something smaller like untenable school situations in regards to racism not addressed by administration. "I'd let the police beat me up for a million dollars!!"
Sign me up for that!

Of course, only if vindication and cash settlement are actually guaranteed, and in a timely manner (not 5 years in jail). But that's the problem. Vindication isn't guaranteed when someone has been wronged. Even if it has in some sense, it usually isn't in every sense (maybe you got a cash settlement, but you lost all your friends or job). Not all wrongs can be reversed, and even those that could be in theory, are not always reversed.
pharphis is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd July 2020, 11:14 AM   #283
Emily's Cat
Rarely prone to hissy-fits
 
Emily's Cat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2013
Location: The Wettest Desert on Earth
Posts: 10,878
Originally Posted by SuburbanTurkey View Post
I'm arguing that these social consequences are proportionate to the social breaches in question.
What was the social breach made by Nick Sandmann for which death threats were proportionate?
__________________
I am me. I am just me. I'm a little like other cats... but mostly I am just me.
Emily's Cat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd July 2020, 11:15 AM   #284
Emily's Cat
Rarely prone to hissy-fits
 
Emily's Cat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2013
Location: The Wettest Desert on Earth
Posts: 10,878
Originally Posted by Mader Levap View Post
I guess you will bother to move finger only when genocide starts. Or maybe not even then, since they have right to express their political views, after all. Right?
Actions and Speech are not the same thing.
__________________
I am me. I am just me. I'm a little like other cats... but mostly I am just me.
Emily's Cat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd July 2020, 11:52 AM   #285
Darat
Lackey
Administrator
 
Darat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: South East, UK
Posts: 92,223
Originally Posted by Emily's Cat View Post
Actions and Speech are not the same thing.
Speech most certainly is an action.
__________________
I wish I knew how to quit you
Darat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd July 2020, 11:58 AM   #286
ponderingturtle
Orthogonal Vector
 
ponderingturtle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 49,053
Originally Posted by Emily's Cat View Post
What was the social breach made by Nick Sandmann for which death threats were proportionate?
Originally Posted by Emily's Cat View Post
Actions and Speech are not the same thing.
Why is the death threats a big deal it is just meaningless speech? It isn't like it was an action. That is why advocating for someones death either specifically in death threats or more broadly through genocide is equivalent and meaningless.
__________________
Sufficiently advanced Woo is indistinguishable from Parody
"There shall be no *poofing* in science" Paul C. Anagnostopoulos
Force ***** on reasons back" Ben Franklin
ponderingturtle is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd July 2020, 12:28 PM   #287
Elagabalus
Philosopher
 
Elagabalus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2013
Posts: 5,909
Some of us can see how in a moment of heated argumentation that it might be possible to lose one's mind and have a Michael Richards moment.*


And I'm not into the whole doxxing thing.



*Of course, I'm not including myself in this nor anyone here on the ISF.
Elagabalus is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd July 2020, 12:31 PM   #288
Mader Levap
Muse
 
Mader Levap's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 844
Originally Posted by Emily's Cat View Post
Actions and Speech are not the same thing.
Speech is action in itself and can lead to "Action". This is why hate crime (and forbidding those in law) exists, since someone saying "all X must be killed" could (and did) incite violence against X.

Other people already noted inconsistency between you dismissing death threats in one case and being opposed to death threats in other case.

There will be always constraints on freedom of speech. It is not absolute right, and it is not just proverbial "shouting FIRE in crowded theatre" case. Get over it.
__________________
Sanity is overrated. / Voting for Trump is morally equivalent to voting for Nazis in early 30's.
Mader Levap is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd July 2020, 12:35 PM   #289
Emily's Cat
Rarely prone to hissy-fits
 
Emily's Cat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2013
Location: The Wettest Desert on Earth
Posts: 10,878
Originally Posted by Darat View Post
Speech most certainly is an action.
I'm pretty sure you know what I mean.
__________________
I am me. I am just me. I'm a little like other cats... but mostly I am just me.
Emily's Cat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd July 2020, 12:36 PM   #290
Emily's Cat
Rarely prone to hissy-fits
 
Emily's Cat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2013
Location: The Wettest Desert on Earth
Posts: 10,878
Originally Posted by Mader Levap View Post
Other people already noted inconsistency between you dismissing death threats in one case and being opposed to death threats in other case.
What death threats have I dismissed? Do you by chance have me confused with someone else?
__________________
I am me. I am just me. I'm a little like other cats... but mostly I am just me.
Emily's Cat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd July 2020, 03:34 PM   #291
d4m10n
Philosopher
 
d4m10n's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: Mounts Farm
Posts: 5,177
Originally Posted by Darat View Post
If you self-identify as a Nazi you are saying you want to kill millions of your fellow citizens, that's a fundamental part of being a Nazi.
This strikes me as an empirical question rather than one we can answer apriori. Did the Neo-Nazis who marched in my hometown actually advocate mass murder? I don't know the answer to this, but you seem to be sure of it before even looking.
__________________
"Well, a statement like that is all the better for proof, but go on, anyway." - Salvor Hardin
d4m10n is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd July 2020, 03:40 PM   #292
Cavemonster
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 5,899
Originally Posted by d4m10n View Post
This strikes me as an empirical question rather than one we can answer apriori. Did the Neo-Nazis who marched in my hometown actually advocate mass murder? I don't know the answer to this, but you seem to be sure of it before even looking.
Do you suppose the swastika was because they admired Hitler's public works programs and disavow the rest?
__________________
The weakness of all Utopias is this, ... They first assume that no man will want more than his share, and then are very ingenious in explaining whether his share will be delivered by motorcar or balloon.
-G.K. CHESTERTON
Cavemonster is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd July 2020, 03:44 PM   #293
Checkmite
Skepticifimisticalationist
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Gulf Coast
Posts: 25,503
Originally Posted by Cavemonster View Post
Do you suppose the swastika was because they admired Hitler's public works programs and disavow the rest?
There is this weird perception - or rather, I'd call it a "claim" - that there are neo-Nazis who proudly display Reich-inspired symbols and and whatnot, because they just really like the idea of trains running on time and that's it.
__________________
"¿WHAT KIND OF BIRD?
¿A PARANORMAL BIRD?"
--- Carlos S., 2002
Checkmite is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd July 2020, 04:09 PM   #294
d4m10n
Philosopher
 
d4m10n's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: Mounts Farm
Posts: 5,177
Originally Posted by Cavemonster View Post
Do you suppose the swastika was because they admired Hitler's public works programs and disavow the rest?
I make no suppositions as to the gap between a political group's openly stated principles and their unstated actual goals; I'm afraid the only way to test it would be to put them in power and see how it turns out. (Rather badly, I'd guess.)

I expect that if we put Marxist/Leninists in power we'd end up with oppressive and murderous results on par with fascism, based on what we've seen historically play out in Russia, China, Cambodia, North Korea, etc.

My conclusion from all this is that we have to forcefully suppress both fascist and communist groups, for the sake of putting the paradox of toleranceWP into practical effect. I remain highly skeptical of those who say we need to suppress just one of these two ideological groups, given how the 20th century actually played out.
__________________
"Well, a statement like that is all the better for proof, but go on, anyway." - Salvor Hardin

Last edited by d4m10n; 2nd July 2020 at 04:30 PM.
d4m10n is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd July 2020, 03:48 AM   #295
Lplus
Thinker
 
Join Date: Jul 2018
Posts: 177
Originally Posted by Cavemonster View Post
Do you suppose the swastika was because they admired Hitler's public works programs and disavow the rest?
Originally Posted by Checkmite View Post
There is this weird perception - or rather, I'd call it a "claim" - that there are neo-Nazis who proudly display Reich-inspired symbols and and whatnot, because they just really like the idea of trains running on time and that's it.
Neither of which answers the question. Do you believe the neo nazis who were marching in his hometown actually advocate mass murder of those they consider to be the "untermenchen"?

Yes or no?
Lplus is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd July 2020, 04:24 AM   #296
Matthew Best
Philosopher
 
Matthew Best's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Leicester Square, London
Posts: 7,622
Originally Posted by SuburbanTurkey View Post
So I circle back to my original question. Where's the examples of cancel culture run wild? The cases mentioned here don't strike me as good examples of that. The MAGA Covington kids ended in a mea culpa for the credulous journalists that got duped. Justine Sacco landed on her feet. There's no reason to believe Amy Goodman won't emerge from her public outing intact.
What on earth is Amy Goodman supposed to have done?
Matthew Best is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd July 2020, 05:34 AM   #297
Darat
Lackey
Administrator
 
Darat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: South East, UK
Posts: 92,223
Originally Posted by d4m10n View Post
I make no suppositions as to the gap between a political group's openly stated principles and their unstated actual goals; I'm afraid the only way to test it would be to put them in power and see how it turns out. (Rather badly, I'd guess.)

I expect that if we put Marxist/Leninists in power we'd end up with oppressive and murderous results on par with fascism, based on what we've seen historically play out in Russia, China, Cambodia, North Korea, etc.

My conclusion from all this is that we have to forcefully suppress both fascist and communist groups, for the sake of putting the paradox of toleranceWP into practical effect. I remain highly skeptical of those who say we need to suppress just one of these two ideological groups, given how the 20th century actually played out.
Following your reasoning (which as I've already said I don't agree with) you'd have to include anyone promoting democracy given how that turned out in North Korea. You are saying that if someone uses the same label as an ideology then that means it is the ideology, even the briefest look into the principles of communism compared to what was labeled communism indicates that the governance was not what the ideology describes. (Which will always be the case as political/economic ideologies are crap models of human behaviour and will never "work" as they are meant to on the page.)

The idea that an ideology that has as one of its principles the legal killing of millions of its fellow citizens should be treated the same way as one that doesn't is a false equivalence.
__________________
I wish I knew how to quit you
Darat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd July 2020, 02:08 PM   #298
d4m10n
Philosopher
 
d4m10n's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: Mounts Farm
Posts: 5,177
Originally Posted by Darat View Post
Following your reasoning (which as I've already said I don't agree with) you'd have to include anyone promoting democracy given how that turned out in North Korea.
I don't think what happened north of the 38th parallel was the result of democrats gaining too much power.

Originally Posted by Darat View Post
You are saying that if someone uses the same label as an ideology then that means it is the ideology...
No, I am saying that a few actual regime changes were historically based on a specific set of principles, regardless of labels.

Originally Posted by Darat View Post
...even the briefest look into the principles of communism compared to what was labeled communism indicates that the governance was not what the ideology describes.
Okay, we can fully agree that Marxism was one of the "crap models of human behaviour" which "will never 'work' as...meant to on the page." Fair enough, as far as it goes. My point was that several revolutions were indeed based on the principles laid down by Marx and we know how they turned out. Nevertheless, we allow Marxists, Leninists, Maoists, and assorted fellow travelers to speak freely in defense of their principles even though we've good reason to believe they'd suppress opposing views upon gaining political power.



Originally Posted by Darat View Post
The idea that an ideology that has as one of its principles the legal [hitlite]killing of millions of its fellow citizens[/hitlite] should be treated the same way as one that doesn't is a false equivalence.
I'm much more concerned about what lives would actually be lost than whether ideologues took the trouble to be explicit about it in advance. By way of example, I doubt anyone wrote down the case for the HolodomorWP in a political pamphlet.


Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-N920A using Tapatalk
__________________
"Well, a statement like that is all the better for proof, but go on, anyway." - Salvor Hardin
d4m10n is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old Yesterday, 05:42 AM   #299
Mader Levap
Muse
 
Mader Levap's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 844
Originally Posted by Emily's Cat View Post
What death threats have I dismissed? Do you by chance have me confused with someone else?
You care a lot about death threats against some guy that was non-conforming to certain rules. (No, I won't be distracted by discussion if that was right or wrong.)

You dismiss far-rigthwing groups rising into power worldwide and their goals, seeing no problem with allowing them to do as they please.

This kind of prioritizing is weird.

Originally Posted by d4m10n View Post
I remain highly skeptical of those who say we need to suppress just one of these two ideological groups,
Your pretense that both group have same power today is cute. I already explained why they are different. Of course, you ignored it.

Originally Posted by d4m10n View Post
given how the 20th century actually played out.
Yeah, everyone knows that history always repeats exactly same way.
__________________
Sanity is overrated. / Voting for Trump is morally equivalent to voting for Nazis in early 30's.
Mader Levap is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old Yesterday, 07:27 AM   #300
d4m10n
Philosopher
 
d4m10n's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: Mounts Farm
Posts: 5,177
Originally Posted by Mader Levap View Post
Your pretense that both group have same power today is cute. I already explained why they are different. Of course, you ignored it.
If there is a line in the "paradox of tolerance" argument against allowing certain political speech which takes current levels of popular support into account, I've yet to hear of it. That would be a more nuanced argument than the usual one, IMHO.

ETA: CPUSAWP has between 5,000 and 10,000 members, whereas the American Nazi PartyWP has somewhat fewer.
__________________
"Well, a statement like that is all the better for proof, but go on, anyway." - Salvor Hardin

Last edited by d4m10n; Yesterday at 07:39 AM.
d4m10n is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old Yesterday, 07:43 AM   #301
Beerina
Sarcastic Conqueror of Notions
 
Beerina's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Posts: 29,969
Originally Posted by TragicMonkey View Post
Funny how when racism and homophobia was culturally acceptable there was no concern about protecting the minority viewpoint, but now that the tides have turned we must suddenly worry about protecting people from the wicked mob. I'm sure it's just an amazing coincidence!
Pretty much this. For thousands of years, gay people were cancelled, if not outright thrown in jail or killed.

Now the shoe is on the other foot, and people are upset?

I would have preferred a simple "stop actively oppressing people", the goal for all those millennia, and just have civil discussions, but I can understand the vengeance.

Just keep a few things in mine -- it's easy to go with the mob. That was what those thousands of years were all about, and politicians know how to guide that to gain power.

__________________
"Great innovations should not be forced [by way of] slender majorities." - Thomas Jefferson

The government should nationalize it! Socialized, single-payer video game development and sales now! More, cheaper, better games, right? Right?

Last edited by Beerina; Yesterday at 08:00 AM.
Beerina is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old Yesterday, 08:26 AM   #302
Butter!
Rough Around the Edges
 
Butter!'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2014
Location: Deep Storage
Posts: 6,692
I guess canceling itself doesn't really bother me. Doxxing for purposes of harassment does, though. I don't think anyone, no matter how bigoted their social gaffe, deserves to face the stalker mob. The people who join those mobs are awful people. They may have a good cause, but that doesn't actually make their actions less awful. People who send death threats to Racist Karen, and call her house incessantly, and make fake profiles pretending to be her, and **** like that - they all need mental help. Way more than Karen. The people who were hungrily tweeting #HasJustineLandedYet - sorry, but there was something wrong with a lot of them. They're projecting personal anger onto these figures, I guess, but they have no sense of scale whatsoever.

But if your job finds out about your racist/sexist/whatever tweets and doesn't want to be associated with you anymore, I can't really muster a tear for you. If you're a celebrity and your fans stop liking you because you say bigoted things, again, that's just the natural flow of public discourse. It's not the "canceling" that I see as the disturbing part of these events.

I know many people don't agree and don't think anyone should be denied their livelihood because of speech; there is valid discussion to be had there. I have an American perspective which colors how I see these things. I'm accustomed to the notion that you can lose your job any day for practically any old thing, so you'd better watch yourself. Maybe things shouldn't be that way. That's a valid discussion, too. It is, nevertheless, the way they are now.

It surprises me sometimes that people with highly visible or public-facing jobs even have personal social media profiles. It just seems like a completely unnecessary risk, both from a PR perspective and a personal security perspective. Not only do they have such profiles, but they also post edgy "jokes" and "rants" and "personal opinions" on them. Why? Why not just keep them as bland as possible?

I feel terrible for Justine Sacco, and I often use her as an example of mob-rule gone wrong, BUT - even I sometimes have to wonder what the blue hell that girl was thinking. I know she only had like 40 followers at the time she sent her fateful AIDS joke, but still. How does someone who works in PR feel even a little bit comfortable making such edgy jokes outside of (for example) a small, intimate, in-person setting where you know everyone and they know you and are familiar with your humor? It boggles the mind. Sacco apparently had a habit of posting that kind of humor, too. I read some examples of other jokes she'd tweeted, and they were quite obnoxious. I have no idea how someone with a background in any kind of public relations or marketing actually lets this happen to them.
__________________
- Formerly isissxn
Butter! is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old Yesterday, 08:52 AM   #303
Mumbles
Philosopher
 
Mumbles's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 7,712
I still have no idea how demanding Bill Cosby's or R. Kelly's performances be cancelled amounts to a "culture - I guess you could call it "anti-rape culture", but even that's a stretch. And people stopped calling others out nearly a decade ago

Originally Posted by Safe-Keeper View Post
So a few days ago I came across a post on Instagram about a teenage girl who had made an inflammatory post on the same platform about how she didn't care about George Floyd's death, that if he didn't want to get killed he shouldn't have broken the law, and that nothing anyone told her would change her mind. Then she posted some kind of "MAGA" remark. Someone responded angrily and she let slip she had been admitted to a certain place of higher education. Someone contacted said institution and they ended up deciding not to admit her. She also of course probably received lots of angry direct messages.
So she publicly endorsed murder, and thus lost a slot at a college. I assume the place has a Code of Conduct, so...not really seeing a severe problem. It's very worth teaching kids to watch out what they do online in any case - particularly for anything involving nudies.

Quote:
I don't want to post a link to the story because I don't want the thread to revolve around that particular incident -- it's meant only as an example, or an illustration. Call-out culture, and campaigns to punish, or "cancel" dissenting voices (campaigning hard to get events and speeches involving them cancelled) has become endemic online, as have echo chambers where anyone who disagrees is scolded and kicked out, and this idea that only the members of a certain in-group is even entitled to mention or discuss a given topic, be it the plight of African-Americans, or transgender rights.
Okay, when I hear about "cancel culture" what people usually mean is "a bunch of people found something I did offensive and stopped following my feed/watching my videos/paying me via Patreon/etc." I mean, that's going to be part of the game.

Most campaigns I see actively trying to "cancel" speaking events usually involve people who, say, advocate genocide, start a war, directly threaten students, and the like, like inviting that Milo idiot or Richard Spencer onto a college campus. Or they're accused or known rapists, murderers, and the like. Which, um...again, not seeing a problem. But that's still not a "culture", it's just a fairly reasonable response to a threat, real or perceived.

Quote:
I've discussed all kinds of skepticism topics for years and years, from belief in UFOs and supernatural creatures to 9/11 edgelords and antivaxxers. One of the things I've come across when discussing antivax in Norway is a certain kind of... sub-culture of antivaxxer trolls who will harass and try to sabotage the lives of particularly outspoken people who disagree with them. They will send them hateful messages, carry out smear campaigns, often trying to paint them as bullies or even more horrible things like pedophiles, and, call their employers to try to sabotage their careers. I always considered the latter a particularly vile tactic, and it's come to be something I associate with trolls with no scrouples.
Yes, I've seen this as well - usually from far right-wingers like Qanon heads, or overt harrassment campaigns like Gamergate. My favorite was when they tried it with Patton Oswalt - who had deliberately written something that sounded very offensive in a first tweet, only to immediately follow it up with a second one that rendered it completely inoffensive. When you're a comedian, it's actually a good move.

Quote:
Now, however, calling out, and punishing people for forbidden opinions, or even bad jokes, seems to be becoming more and more common. Not something done only by knuckle-dragging Internet trolls, but by more and more oh so cool and woke Internet activists on anything from LGBTQ+ to BLM supporters. The pattern seems to be that they stay in echo chambers for too long, and/or experience events in society that makes them angry (often very, very rightfully so, let's be honest), and they end up interpreting statements in a far worse way than they were intended, deciding that anyone not in their in-group can't understand or relate to what they're going through or have a qualified opinion, and venting their mounting anger on random people online who are discovered and highlighted by particularly influential individuals. Oh, and obsessing over insignificant, minor details like someone using the wrong word or something in an otherwise innocent post or conversation.
In my own experiences, what you're describing involves people reacting to videos of people who plainly walk up out of nowhere and begin shouting slurs, waving guns, or just outright attack the person, on camera, usually while screaming out of a car with a company's logo on the side, at their job, at home, and so forth. Again, sorry, but employers can decide "so, um, no, we don't want you with us.", and DA can say "Well, that's obviously a felony, let's bring them in."

Sorry, but being Afro-Latino myself, I've said this before, folks are sick and tired of having to worry about this sort of explosive nonsense whenever they step outside. When people turn the tables on these bigoted lunatics, I just grin. Makes my heart grow three sizes.

But nobody really calls this a "culture" - it's just helping out a stranger who was unjustly harassed or attacked.

Quote:
The pattern is pretty clear and worrying: if you meet someone with the wrong views, they're not to be reasoned with or simply ignored, they are to be shamed, shunned, harrassed, and punished. There is no live and let live, or reasoned debates with facts, just us-versus-them. Anyone opining in the thread about the Instagram post I mentioned earlier were told they "supported racism", or for that matter that they had no right to have an opinion in the first place, because of their skin colour. Starting posts with disclaimers like "I hate Trump with a passion, but..." seems more important than ever in this age of emotion and polarisation.
Well, I mean, the person in your example rather clearly *did* "support racism*, and murder as well honestly. And really, how am I supposed to simply "reason with or ignore" a complete stranger that's following my around and screaming that I'm a "retarded ******" or starts slapping me for walking down the street? (both things that have happened) The first is obviously threatening, and the latter just attacked me. I've been sent to PR for "frightening a coworker" because he joked that he'd "kick [my] ass." And I counte-joked that he should "Meet me by the flagpole after class", and we weren't in any class. If I nearly get fired for that, then the stranger following me around and screaming can lose theirs, and I would not care at all.

And before you bring it up - "All Lives Matter", and "Blue Lives Matter" are known to be nothing more than attempts to say that "Black Lives Matter" and actual network of community groups, has no legitimate claim - or in other words, it's fine to attack black people just because you saw them walking down the street. People who use either term are, unlike BLM, evoking a clear and obvious hostility towards black people in general. People have had seven years to figure this out. It equivalent to the "I Can Breathe" shirts that NYPD heads wore when people were protesting the murder of Eric Garner.

Quote:
So... what do we do about this, and, if we take a step back from the anecdotes, how big and prevalent a problem is this really? I tried telling them that all of us have views that someone out there finds horrific, and that all of us have made off-colour jokes, or posts we didn't think through properly, or statements in real life or online in an "edgy", provocative manner, and that we can't just go around punishing whoever says something we don't like or agree with. Don't think that made any difference with any of them.
Yes - and I'm pretty sure Jimmy Kimmel, Sarah Silverman, and the like will still have careers despite their old use of blackface (In Silverman's case, true, Al Jolson style Blackface at that)

Quote:
I tried a "how would you like it if it happened to you" approach, pointing out that this probably just creates more vindictiveness and polarisation, and quite possibly more trumpkins, and a stronger idea of "radical triggered libs", but I don't know if that had much of an effect either.

I considered sending a supportive message to the girl in question, telling her that I in no way condoned what she said, or had any love for Trump, but that what happened to her was reprehensible and I wished her all the best (I could do this as they'd of course helpfully posted a link to her profile so that people could pile on and send hate mail), but I have no idea if the person in question had deleted the account and it had since been hijacked, and the trolls appeared to be naming and shaming people reaching out to her for support, too.

So... what do we do about this development, where not only Internet trolls, but also an increasing number of people across the political spectrum are starting to do things like this? And is this actually as big a problem as it seems, or just another case of a minority appearing much bigger than it is by being, well, very vocal?
I don't see a problem if people of any political leaning get help to report truly egregious behavior, particularly if the person is dumb enough to do it knowing that there's a camera pointed directly at them. In fact I think some people (especially police) should face far stronger sanctions when they do so. For Gamergaters and the like, I honestly don't know. Neither social media nor legal authorities are inclined to do much of anything about them. I know that some people will discuss potential problems beforehand with local police, their employers, and so forth. How effective this is, I really can't say.
Mumbles is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old Yesterday, 09:22 AM   #304
Meadmaker
Penultimate Amazing
 
Meadmaker's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 21,895
Originally Posted by Butter! View Post
I have an American perspective which colors how I see these things. I'm accustomed to the notion that you can lose your job any day for practically any old thing, so you'd better watch yourself.
Sometimes, there are comments that i find jarring.

Before I explain, let me say that I agree with most of your post, especially as regards people with high visibility jobs. It's foolish to even have a social media account if your job requires a lot of high visibility interaction with the public.

Now, back to the jarring. The reason I find it jarring is that I read the first sentence of the quote above and formed an expectation about what would follow next, and what followed was 180 degrees away from what I expected.

When I was growing up, there was a common expression in use, but one which I haven't heard in a very long time. If someone said something that you disagreed with, especially if you found it incredibly stupid, a common reply was "It's a free country." That meant, essentially, "Whatever". It meant, "I think that's dumb, but not worth arguing about." It could mean some other variations on that, including "I really hate what you just said but it's not worth arguing about." It was a way of emphasizing disagreement, but relating it to a core principle of American existence, which is that people had a right to say whatever they felt like, no matter how stupid.

So, when I read, "I have an American perspective", I expected it to be followed with, "I think people should be free to say whatever they want." or some variation thereof. It was quite jarring to read the opposite.

I think that we, as a society, have become far more tolerant of sexual behavior in this country. We are also far more accepting of people of different races. There are certain other ways in which we have become more tolerant than in my youth, but we have grown less tolerant of opinions we don't like.

Last edited by Meadmaker; Yesterday at 09:23 AM.
Meadmaker is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old Yesterday, 09:29 AM   #305
Lithrael
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Posts: 1,886
Originally Posted by Butter! View Post
I guess canceling itself doesn't really bother me. Doxxing for purposes of harassment does, though.
Agreed with your post pretty much 100%.
Lithrael is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old Yesterday, 09:56 AM   #306
Butter!
Rough Around the Edges
 
Butter!'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2014
Location: Deep Storage
Posts: 6,692
Originally Posted by Meadmaker View Post
Sometimes, there are comments that i find jarring.

Before I explain, let me say that I agree with most of your post, especially as regards people with high visibility jobs. It's foolish to even have a social media account if your job requires a lot of high visibility interaction with the public.

Now, back to the jarring. The reason I find it jarring is that I read the first sentence of the quote above and formed an expectation about what would follow next, and what followed was 180 degrees away from what I expected.

When I was growing up, there was a common expression in use, but one which I haven't heard in a very long time. If someone said something that you disagreed with, especially if you found it incredibly stupid, a common reply was "It's a free country." That meant, essentially, "Whatever". It meant, "I think that's dumb, but not worth arguing about." It could mean some other variations on that, including "I really hate what you just said but it's not worth arguing about." It was a way of emphasizing disagreement, but relating it to a core principle of American existence, which is that people had a right to say whatever they felt like, no matter how stupid.

So, when I read, "I have an American perspective", I expected it to be followed with, "I think people should be free to say whatever they want." or some variation thereof. It was quite jarring to read the opposite.

I think that we, as a society, have become far more tolerant of sexual behavior in this country. We are also far more accepting of people of different races. There are certain other ways in which we have become more tolerant than in my youth, but we have grown less tolerant of opinions we don't like.
Ah, I see what you mean! I guess I did word that a bit strangely, considering all the "free country" stuff associated with America. What I meant to refer to was our tendency toward "at-will" employment. My understanding is that workers in some other comparable nations (like the UK) tend to have a bit more job protection than we do.
__________________
- Formerly isissxn
Butter! is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old Yesterday, 09:16 PM   #307
William Parcher
Show me the monkey!
 
William Parcher's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 25,467
Originally Posted by Darat View Post
it doesn't matter what the ideology is it will fail.
I see you are making a point, but I don't understand it. What do you mean when you say fail.
__________________
Bigfoot believers and Bigfoot skeptics are both plumb crazy. Each spends more than one minute per year thinking about Bigfoot.
William Parcher is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Reply

International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Social Issues & Current Events

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 12:07 AM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2020, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

This forum began as part of the James Randi Education Foundation (JREF). However, the forum now exists as
an independent entity with no affiliation with or endorsement by the JREF, including the section in reference to "JREF" topics.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.