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 10th June 2019, 10:13 AM   #41
isissxn
Rough Around the Edges
 
isissxn's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2014
Location: Deep Storage
Posts: 5,974
Originally Posted by CaptainHowdy View Post
Opposition to people who want to kill millions of their fellow citizens isn’t “edgy”. It’s fundamental to a functioning society.
'k.
isissxn 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 10th June 2019, 10:37 AM   #42
Darat
Lackey
Administrator
 
Darat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: South East, UK
Posts: 86,810
Originally Posted by William Parcher View Post
I don't read what these hate groups write. But how do they propose to kill millions? Are they planning to do it the original Nazi way with trains bringing the millions to gas chambers in concentration camps?
No idea, thankfully you often don't need to read extensively before their wants are revealed.
__________________
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 10th June 2019, 10:41 AM   #43
luchog
Neo-Post-Retro-Revivalist
 
luchog's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: The Emerald City
Posts: 15,744
Originally Posted by isissxn View Post
I think it gets even muddier because some people online really are just using edgy humor, while as others are propelled by more sinister motives. Personally, I have no desire to see humor policed. However, with the way things are these days, I find that I personally am less likely to give an edgelord the benefit of the doubt.

I find myself increasingly unable to give edgelords and edgelord humour the benefit of the doubt. At best, it's simply bullying. Disclaimer: I used to be a pretty big proponent of edgelord humour and free-speech extremism, and spent far too many years as a 4Chan /b/tard myself.

Racist, sexist, LGBTQ-phobic humour does not become any less racist, sexist, or LGBTQ-phobic just because someone announces they're "just trolling". It demands that we ask certain questions, ask why this form of humour is being used, what the point is, what the edgelord hopes to accomplish with it.

Three questions that need to be asked, but rarely are (even by those opposed to such):

1) What is the actual goal here? What is the purpose of edgelord humour? Not just the superficial surface purpose, but deeper down, what does it mean and what does it accomplish?

2) Who is the actual target of the edgelord humour? Why are they being targeted? What is it about the target that the edgelord finds objectionable?

3) Why is it necessary to use demeaning and marginalizing language against historically disadvantaged groups? Is there another tactic that would accomplish the ostensible goal without further marginalizing or "othering"? Or is that marginalization part of the point?

I generally find that the true answers to these questions are rarely the glib, dismissive answers that are often given. Almost always, the stated goal is "trolling the libtards". But that does not ring true. If the goal was to satirize or parody liberalism, why not attack liberalism directly? Why do so indirectly by attacking marginalized and oppressed groups? Unless, of course, attacking marginalized and oppressed groups is the point; unless they're as much the intended target as the ostensible "libtards".

And what is it about liberalism that is so objectionable? The desire to include everyone in society as equal participants, regardless of ethnic origin, sexual preference and gender identity, religious belief or lack thereof, and so on? The desire for everyone to have equal access to resources that will help them improve their physical, mental, and economic well-being? What exactly is the objection?

We know for the reactionary right, that the objection is exactly those things, they don't want everyone treated equally, they want to maintain an elitist social hierarchy where some have privileges that others do not, and do not believe in universal human rights. But what about the edgelords, do they also want to maintain that sort of social hierarchy?

It's also possible to be "edgy" without targeting historically marginalized and oppressed groups, it's just more difficult to do so.
__________________
"All opinions are not equal. Some are a very great deal more robust, sophisticated and well supported in logic and argument than others." -- Douglas Adams
"The absence of evidence might indeed not be evidence of absence, but it's a pretty good start." -- PhantomWolf
"Let's see the buggers figure that one out." - John Lennon
luchog 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 10th June 2019, 10:52 AM   #44
luchog
Neo-Post-Retro-Revivalist
 
luchog's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: The Emerald City
Posts: 15,744
Originally Posted by Cavemonster View Post
I'm wary if the term "stochastic terrorism" in the same way I was wary of "fake news". And that was one of the few things I was right about around the time of the election.

"Stochastic terrorism" allows criticism and opposition to be cast as an act of violence.

Well, no, it doesn't. Go and read the actual definition and application of the term. Criticism isn't incitement; although incitement can be and often is couched as criticism. I think we're all familiar with the Just Asking Questions tactic, and the way that anti-Semitism is often disguised as criticism of Israel (which, admittedly, has opened itself up to a great deal of criticism by its recent administration's actions and policies).

But that's where the "plausible deniability" factor comes in. Whenever you hear the Far Right attacking and criticizing "George Soros", looking critically at the context and nature of the attacks will show that doing so is almost invariably an attack on Jews in general, the age-old "Jews running the world behind the scenes" in a new form, with a more deniable face.

Quote:
If the term gains popularity, it will absolutely be of far most used by the disingenuous right wing to paint their critics as terrorists.

Except that the Right already does this with literally everything else. "Fake News", "political correctness", "media bias", "tolerance", "SJW", and so on. There is nothing that the reactionary right cannot or will not twist into an attack on their opponents. They're very good at that, as the current presidential administration has demonstrated. By refusing to use accurate terminology, and restricting the ability to discuss phenomena because of that, is to play right into their hands, to let them define the nature and scope of the discourse.

Originally Posted by William Parcher View Post
I don't read what these hate groups write. But how do they propose to kill millions?

They lay that out pretty clearly in their documentation, and it's the entire subject of this thread discussing stochastic terrorism. Refusal to educate yourself on their tactics and goals just plays their game, gives them the power to define the discourse, and hobbles opposition.
__________________
"All opinions are not equal. Some are a very great deal more robust, sophisticated and well supported in logic and argument than others." -- Douglas Adams
"The absence of evidence might indeed not be evidence of absence, but it's a pretty good start." -- PhantomWolf
"Let's see the buggers figure that one out." - John Lennon

Last edited by luchog; 10th June 2019 at 10:55 AM.
luchog 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 10th June 2019, 01:26 PM   #45
jimbob
Uncritical "thinker"
 
jimbob's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: UK
Posts: 21,158
Originally Posted by Cavemonster View Post
I'm wary if the term "stochastic terrorism" in the same way I was wary of "fake news". And that was one of the few things I was right about around the time of the election.

"Stochastic terrorism" allows criticism and opposition to be cast as an act of violence. If the term gains popularity, it will absolutely be of far most used by the disingenuous right wing to paint their critics as terrorists.
That's throwing the baby out with the bathwater. Both highlight real strategies, and it's probably better to highlight it rather than pretend it doesn't exist.
__________________
OECD healthcare spending
Expenditure on healthcare
http://www.oecd.org/els/health-systems/health-data.htm
link is 2015 data (2013 Data below):
UK 8.5% of GDP of which 83.3% is public expenditure - 7.1% of GDP is public spending
US 16.4% of GDP of which 48.2% is public expenditure - 7.9% of GDP is public spending
jimbob 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 10th June 2019, 01:45 PM   #46
JoeMorgue
Self Employed
Remittance Man
 
JoeMorgue's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Florida
Posts: 19,522
Okay people.. at some point the bathwater stops being just dirty and starts being radioactive and we have to at least consider whether or not the baby is worth it, horribleness of that metaphor aside.
__________________
- "Ernest Hemingway once wrote that the world is a fine place and worth fighting for. I agree with the second part." - Detective Sommerset
- "Stupidity does not cancel out stupidity to yield genius. It breeds like a bucket-full of coked out hamsters." - The Oatmeal
- "To the best of my knowledge the only thing philosophy has ever proven is that Descartes could think." - SMBC
JoeMorgue 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 10th June 2019, 02:13 PM   #47
isissxn
Rough Around the Edges
 
isissxn's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2014
Location: Deep Storage
Posts: 5,974
Originally Posted by JoeMorgue View Post
Okay people.. at some point the bathwater stops being just dirty and starts being radioactive and we have to at least consider whether or not the baby is worth it, horribleness of that metaphor aside.
Hahaha, oh man, Joe - you win the darkest analogy award.

isissxn 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 10th June 2019, 02:16 PM   #48
angrysoba
Philosophile
 
angrysoba's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Osaka, Japan
Posts: 25,197
Originally Posted by Darat View Post
But they never took any action.

Another one would be the author of the style guide "This is obviously a ploy and I actually do want to gas kikes. But that’s neither here nor there" just like he was say a member of ISIS saying the same thing.
I think if you can demonstrate intent then a person doesn’t need to actually have taken any action.
__________________
"The thief and the murderer follow nature just as much as the philanthropist. Cosmic evolution may teach us how the good and the evil tendencies of man may have come about; but, in itself, it is incompetent to furnish any better reason why what we call good is preferable to what we call evil than we had before."

"Evolution and Ethics" T.H. Huxley (1893)
angrysoba 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 10th June 2019, 02:17 PM   #49
angrysoba
Philosophile
 
angrysoba's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Osaka, Japan
Posts: 25,197
Originally Posted by JoeMorgue View Post
Okay people.. at some point the bathwater stops being just dirty and starts being radioactive and we have to at least consider whether or not the baby is worth it, horribleness of that metaphor aside.
You get a twofer if it’s baby Hitler.
__________________
"The thief and the murderer follow nature just as much as the philanthropist. Cosmic evolution may teach us how the good and the evil tendencies of man may have come about; but, in itself, it is incompetent to furnish any better reason why what we call good is preferable to what we call evil than we had before."

"Evolution and Ethics" T.H. Huxley (1893)
angrysoba 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 10th June 2019, 03:48 PM   #50
Vixen
Penultimate Amazing
 
Vixen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Location: Suomi
Posts: 16,209
Originally Posted by William Parcher View Post
I don't read what these hate groups write. But how do they propose to kill millions? Are they planning to do it the original Nazi way with trains bringing the millions to gas chambers in concentration camps?
Charles Manson had the fun/edgy thing down to a tee. Murdering so that the killings would be blamed on Blacks who would then start a race war, whilst all the time larking about with Beatles lyrics, such as 'Helter Skelter' graffiti-ed on the walls.

There are people today who admire this stuff.
__________________
Then let the way appear, steps unto heav'n.
All that thou sendest me, in mercy giv'n.'
Vixen 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 10th June 2019, 03:50 PM   #51
Vixen
Penultimate Amazing
 
Vixen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Location: Suomi
Posts: 16,209
Originally Posted by luchog View Post
Demagoguery and "whipping-up" rhetoric have been around forever. What's changed is that there is a better understanding of the psychology of communication, and that is being exploited by the demagogues to further their agenda while maintaining distance from it.

The really disturbing thing is that this is all heavily based in the psychology of marketing. The terrorists have learned how to advertise effectively, and make their calls to action indirect and implied, and thus more effective (along with being deniable).

If you look at the history of advertising, there has been a huge shift in how the communication works, how it's targeted, and how it's structured. The primary emphasis is on association, implication, and emotion rather than factual details. This has become especially true in the age of "viral marketing", where a small amount of effort on the part of the marketer to create "memes" shifts much of the effort off of the marketers themselves, and onto the targets of their marketing, who can be expected to self-market by sharing the memes. The use of humour in viral marketing is one of the most effective techniques for prompting a viral propagation of the advertisement.

This has been picked up on by the Right and Far Right, who have been increasingly effective at implementing this sort of "viral marketing" of their worldview and calls to action.




The Right has always been effective at marketing, because they understand it better than the Left, and their worldview is far more easily adapted to marketing than the Left's worldview.

They key components of the Right's messaging:

1) Abdication of responsibility for one's person circumstances. Despite paying lip service to "personal responsibility", the fundamental goal of the Right is to blame someone or something else for one's own failures and inabiliy to improve one's personal and/or financial status.

2) Scapegoating for social and economic problems. After abdicating responsibility, blame must be cast on another entity. Immigrants, certain ethnic groups (Jews and black people most commonly), homosexuals and transexuals, Muslims, and so on. There must be a convenient marginalized group to make the target of fear and focus of hatred to distract from the true nature and complexity of the problems.

3) Simple answers to complex questions. Humans do not like complexity, complexity is hard and takes considerable effort to understand. People prefer simple answers to the problems of social upheaval, economic instability, and their own sub-optimal life circumstances. Even better if these answers absolve the mainstream of responsibility for their circumstances, and put the blame on someone or something else, as noted in 1 and 2. The ultimate answer is always, "put your trust and support in a strong-man leader, and your problems will be fixed for you".

That is a very simple and easy message to market: It's not your fault, it's this other groups fault, vote for me and I'll punish them and reward you.

The message of the Progressive Left is considerably more complex, depends heavily on people being intelligent and introspective enough to take true responsibility for their circumstances, and understanding the complicated social forces that can stymie personal efforts to improve one's circumstances. It's very difficult to distill into quick-and-dirty sound bites and slogans; and therefore harder to market as effectively as the reactionary worldview.




That is because the Left fetishizes the concept of "tolerance" the same way that centrists and libertarians fetishize the concepts of "free speech" and "liberty" without truly understanding the nature and limitations of those concepts. I've posted this link a number of times, but it continues to be relevant and IMO very important to understand: [url=https://extranewsfeed.com/tolerance-is-not-a-moral-precept-1af7007d6376]Tolerance is not a moral precept. It's a peace treaty, not a suicide pact, and once the treaty has been broken by one side ,the other side is no longer obligated to abide by it. "Tolerance of the intolerant" is not a valid expression of the principle, and it is in fact diametrically opposed to the concept of tolerance, because the result is a lessening, not a growth, of tolerance.
It's also extremely boring. It is so mind-numbingly repetitive one goes into automatic heavy eyelid mode.
__________________
Then let the way appear, steps unto heav'n.
All that thou sendest me, in mercy giv'n.'
Vixen 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 10th June 2019, 03:54 PM   #52
Mumbles
Philosopher
 
Mumbles's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 7,089
...I’ve said before that my favorite podcast has a game called “Guess the Race”, where the host reads news article and asks everyone to...well, guess the race of the people involved.

The key, of course, is the ultimate joke - everyone who plays is a racist. That’s when such jokes work, and don’t sound vindictive, you’re mocking yourself.

Anyway, thanks to luchog for the OP, and I’m wondering if you saw kat Blaque s last video, and faraday speaks’s response?
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 10th June 2019, 03:58 PM   #53
Stankeye
Critical Thinker
 
Stankeye's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 262
Originally Posted by luchog View Post
- snip-

For more in-depth details on this, I strongly recommend the following two videos, which provide a systematic exploration of the process of radicalization from normalization to direct violent action.

The PewDiePipeline: how edgy humor leads to violence
PewDiePipeline 2: How to Shut it Down
-end snip-
Why do I need to listen to an anarcho-communists who makes videos on how anarchy is going work (who doesn't advocate violence https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KIn2xR--VYk ) telling me how PewdiePie's edgy humor leads to violence.

This is weird. You were doing better using the FBI and Homeland resources for your research. Maybe with the government being filled with members of the Bourgeoisie they are lacking insight into these existential threats that these other sources seem far better at figuring out.
Stankeye 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 10th June 2019, 05:09 PM   #54
luchog
Neo-Post-Retro-Revivalist
 
luchog's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: The Emerald City
Posts: 15,744
Originally Posted by Stankeye View Post
Why do I need to listen to an anarcho-communists who makes videos on how anarchy is going work (who doesn't advocate violence https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KIn2xR--VYk ) telling me how PewdiePie's edgy humor leads to violence.

This is weird.

No, this is an Ad Hominem Fallacy. Address the points, not the person. Are his points wrong, and if so, how, what evidence is there to contradict them?


Quote:
You were doing better using the FBI and Homeland resources for your research. Maybe with the government being filled with members of the Bourgeoisie they are lacking insight into these existential threats that these other sources seem far better at figuring out.

My sources are the same as the ones used by the creator of the video, and anyone else doing serious research into the issue.

"The government" is not a monolithic entity, it is a collection of people. Prior to the Trump administration, the FBI took the threats of domestic terrorism as seriously as it did foreign terrorism, and still tries to. But since Trump took office, he and his hand-picked hatchet men have been steadily dismantling the domestic terrorism task forces and documentation. Not surprising to anyone who was paying attention to the campaign, Trump's bigotry, and his affinity for white supremacists and other bigots. He has also actively supported and praised those higher up in the radicalization pipeline, like Fox News pundits like Tucker Carlson, and worse, Breitbart officials like Steve Bannon (before Bannon committed the unpardonable sin of stealing Trump's spotlight).

https://www.theatlantic.com/politics...remacy/579745/
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/08/15/u...ionalists.html

Not to mention Trump appointing actual white supremacists to high government offices, like Jeff Sessions, a man found to be too racist to be a judge IN ALABAMA! (Yes, I stole that, it was too good not to.) And Michael Flynn, a flaming Islamophobe who openly praised queer neo-Nazi Milo Yiannopoulos. And Larry Kudlow, in tight with VDare owner Peter Brimelow. And Stephen Miller, who authored the racist travel ban and the government's policy of separation of refugee families (with thousands of children still in government custody, many of them kept in cages, treated like animals, and sexually abused, which Miller touts as a "success"), and has tried to get the administration to ban Chinese students from attending American universities. Even the sole black person in Trump's cabinet, Ben Carlson, has gotten into the spreading-white-supremacist-propaganda game on his Twitter.

Then there's Trump's re-tweeting of propaganda from white supremacist groups like Britain First, and White Genocide.

https://www.theatlantic.com/politics...nalism/568393/

Hell, Trump's own campaign slogans are ripped right out of white supremacist propaganda; such as "America First", which was originally the slogan of the American Nazi Party. And it's painfully obvious what he means by "Make America Great Again", as the polices and propaganda under that umbrella all idealize a period in history when black people and other minorities were violently excluded from mainstream society with the full force of law.

But it's not just Trump. The GOP has long been the party of white supremacists, and their actions pre-Trump are just as egregious, if not as well known. Reports from government agencies that only hinted at links between the increasingly radicalized conservative community, and white nationalist terrorist organizations, have been suppressed or condemned by Republicans. That is, when they're not openly espousing a white supremacist worldview like Iowa congresscritter Steve King.

http://nymag.com/intelligencer/2019/...-shooting.html

Government officials are not "lacking insight", they're well aware of the links and the influences. They are also aware of who their base is, who supports and keeps them in office. They may disavow them publicly in occasionally unconvincing ways, but they recognize the power that white supremacists hold in conservative communities, and have at best made a deal with the devil to maintain their own power.

The problem isn't the source of the information, anyone who is doing serious research into the problem of domestic terrorism can easily come to the same conclusions, regardless of whether they're "anarcho-communists", "radical feminists", "libtards", "wishy-washy centrists", or whatever other boogeyman the reactionary-right blames for the ills of the nation. What matters is the validity of the sources and reporting. "Why do I need to listen to an anarcho-communists"? Because in this instance, they have extremely valid and important points to make about the state of racism and terrorism in this nation, and the world.
__________________
"All opinions are not equal. Some are a very great deal more robust, sophisticated and well supported in logic and argument than others." -- Douglas Adams
"The absence of evidence might indeed not be evidence of absence, but it's a pretty good start." -- PhantomWolf
"Let's see the buggers figure that one out." - John Lennon

Last edited by luchog; 10th June 2019 at 05:11 PM.
luchog 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 10th June 2019, 05:13 PM   #55
luchog
Neo-Post-Retro-Revivalist
 
luchog's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: The Emerald City
Posts: 15,744
Originally Posted by Mumbles View Post
Anyway, thanks to luchog for the OP, and I’m wondering if you saw kat Blaque s last video, and faraday speaks’s response?

I have not, I've been at work with very limited time to watch videos (as opposed to reading news articles and editorials, which is much easier to do while I'm working). Would you happen to have a link handy?
__________________
"All opinions are not equal. Some are a very great deal more robust, sophisticated and well supported in logic and argument than others." -- Douglas Adams
"The absence of evidence might indeed not be evidence of absence, but it's a pretty good start." -- PhantomWolf
"Let's see the buggers figure that one out." - John Lennon
luchog 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 12th June 2019, 09:22 AM   #56
luchog
Neo-Post-Retro-Revivalist
 
luchog's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: The Emerald City
Posts: 15,744
Originally Posted by Giz View Post
Since the founding of America, free speech has seen off:
- Monarchists

Required multiple wars for that to happen, including the American Revolutionary War, and the War of 1812.

Quote:
- Slavery

Required the American Civil War to abolish slavery politically, numerous violent and non-violent clashes with government forces, piles of legislation and activism. The fight against the attitudes that would like to re-establish slavery is still ongoing to this day.

Quote:
- Imperialists

Required numerous wars in and outside of the US and still has not been fully accomplished. The US is still an imperialist power which directly or indirectly contributes to the oppression of minorities both domestically and worldwide.

Quote:
- Nazis

Required a world war and millions of deaths to achieve. Their followers still exist and work to re-establish Nazi worldviews and regimes to this day.

Quote:
- Communists

Required decades of the Cold War, propaganda efforts, and economic warfare. There are still oppressive communist regimes in the world, and those seeking to establish such regimes in the US to this day.

Quote:
- Segregationists

See the above comments on Slavery. This is still an ongoing problem in the US, from Jim Crow, to the Civil Rights era, and continuing today. Attempting to end Segregation has required piles of legislation, and often violent force to enforce that legislation and prevent segregationist efforts. Efforts which are still taking place in much of the country, and still involve violent force.

Quote:
But there’s no way it can see off internet edgelords. Farewell free speech, you had a good run but it’s time to retire and let ‘approved speakers and boundaries’ have a turn!

None of the problems you listed were "seen off" by "free speech". In each and every case it has been violent force, or the threat of it, often combined with enacting legislation backed with violent force, to address the problem. Which means that if you're insisting on treating edgelord propaganda the same as all of those other problems were treated, then anti-hate-speech legislation, prosecution, and forceful imprisonment would be proportionally justified. Yet you seem to think that proportionate equivalents to the tactics used to resolve or attempt to resolve those other problems don't apply in this specific case. Why is that, I wonder...
__________________
"All opinions are not equal. Some are a very great deal more robust, sophisticated and well supported in logic and argument than others." -- Douglas Adams
"The absence of evidence might indeed not be evidence of absence, but it's a pretty good start." -- PhantomWolf
"Let's see the buggers figure that one out." - John Lennon

Last edited by luchog; 12th June 2019 at 09:24 AM.
luchog 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 12th June 2019, 12:21 PM   #57
Elagabalus
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Dec 2013
Posts: 4,638
Originally Posted by bruto View Post
We should not forget one of the great weapons of plausible deniability: the "rule of so," which enjoyed a short run here.

You need not take responsibility for much of anything if you declare that any conclusions or implications are an inherent fallacy.

There's another one threatening to take its place. I call it "the rule of so analogy."
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 12th June 2019, 01:19 PM   #58
smartcooky
Penultimate Amazing
 
smartcooky's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: Nelson, New Zealand
Posts: 12,222
Originally Posted by luchog View Post
Required multiple wars for that to happen, including the American Revolutionary War, and the War of 1812.

Required the American Civil War to abolish slavery politically, numerous violent and non-violent clashes with government forces, piles of legislation and activism. The fight against the attitudes that would like to re-establish slavery is still ongoing to this day.

Required numerous wars in and outside of the US and still has not been fully accomplished. The US is still an imperialist power which directly or indirectly contributes to the oppression of minorities both domestically and worldwide.

Required a world war and millions of deaths to achieve. Their followers still exist and work to re-establish Nazi worldviews and regimes to this day.

Required decades of the Cold War, propaganda efforts, and economic warfare. There are still oppressive communist regimes in the world, and those seeking to establish such regimes in the US to this day.

See the above comments on Slavery. This is still an ongoing problem in the US, from Jim Crow, to the Civil Rights era, and continuing today. Attempting to end Segregation has required piles of legislation, and often violent force to enforce that legislation and prevent segregationist efforts. Efforts which are still taking place in much of the country, and still involve violent force.

None of the problems you listed were "seen off" by "free speech". In each and every case it has been violent force, or the threat of it, often combined with enacting legislation backed with violent force, to address the problem. Which means that if you're insisting on treating edgelord propaganda the same as all of those other problems were treated, then anti-hate-speech legislation, prosecution, and forceful imprisonment would be proportionally justified. Yet you seem to think that proportionate equivalents to the tactics used to resolve or attempt to resolve those other problems don't apply in this specific case. Why is that, I wonder...

Ouch! Talk about blowing up someone's argument!

The term "hoisted by his own petard" comes to mind!
__________________
“Give me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses yearning to breathe free, the wretched refuse of your teeming shore - if they're white!"
If you don't like my posts, my opinions, or my directness then put me on your ignore list.
This will be of benefit to both of us; you won't have to take umbrage at my posts, and I won't have to waste my time talking to you... simples! !

Last edited by smartcooky; 12th June 2019 at 01:26 PM.
smartcooky 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 12th June 2019, 01:59 PM   #59
Giz
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Posts: 8,485
Originally Posted by smartcooky View Post
Ouch! Talk about blowing up someone's argument!

The term "hoisted by his own petard" comes to mind!
Sigh.

For those who are a bit slow:

Free speech in America was sufficient to rally the people against nazism. That a war was needed for America to stop nazism in a foreign country is hardly the point.

Free speech, in America, has won the debate and rallied a crucial mass on its side in each of the great moral challenges.
Giz 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 12th June 2019, 03:07 PM   #60
luchog
Neo-Post-Retro-Revivalist
 
luchog's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: The Emerald City
Posts: 15,744
Originally Posted by Giz View Post
Sigh.

For those who are a bit slow:

Free speech in America was sufficient to rally the people against nazism. That a war was needed for America to stop nazism in a foreign country is hardly the point.

Free speech, in America, has won the debate and rallied a crucial mass on its side in each of the great moral challenges.

That's quite a feat of combined backpedaling and goalpost moving; you've turned it into an Olympic-level sport.

For a certain person who is ignoring the actual history of WWII: America did not "rally a crucial mass" to support the war in Europe against the Nazis. The war was exceedingly unpopular, the US still recovering from the aftermath of WWI and mired in the Great Depression. The overwhelming majority of the American public opposed getting involved in "another foreign war"; and many of them sympathized with Hitler's Antisemitism and white supremacism, including members of the federal government, and captains of industry like Henry Ford. There was even an American Nazi Party, whose slogan was "America First!" (Now why does that sound familiar...)

What got the American government (not people) involved in the war against the Nazis at all was direct, in-person pleading by Churchill to Roosevelt; who then made a backroom deal known as the Lend-Lease Program to provide vehicles, weapons, and ammunition to England and the Allies to help in the war-effort. All behind the backs of the American public.

America did not change their mind and enter the war fully and officially until the bombing of Pearl Harbor by the Japanese. It was not "free speech" rallying a "crucial mass" in support of a "great moral challenge". It was, essentially, Japan walking up and sucker-punching us in the face, after which we got back up and proceeded to trade punches until we managed to get in the knockout blow. There was no debate, there was only anger at having been attacked, and the desire for retaliation on the part of the American public.

Attempting to paint this as a "triumph of free speech" is beyond-ludicrously ignorant of history.
__________________
"All opinions are not equal. Some are a very great deal more robust, sophisticated and well supported in logic and argument than others." -- Douglas Adams
"The absence of evidence might indeed not be evidence of absence, but it's a pretty good start." -- PhantomWolf
"Let's see the buggers figure that one out." - John Lennon

Last edited by luchog; 12th June 2019 at 03:23 PM.
luchog 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 12th June 2019, 04:14 PM   #61
I Am The Scum
Illuminator
 
I Am The Scum's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 3,995
In addition to Luchog's point, I'm really wondering what free speech has to do with the rise of Nazism in Germany. Suppose we could go back in time to the 30s and promote some kind of free speech principle to a greater degree. Would that have stopped Hitler's rise to power?

This would imply some kind of belief that, "If not for more people talking about X, then the Holocaust would have never happened," and I honestly cannot imagine what X needs to be for that sentence to be true.
I Am The Scum 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 12th June 2019, 04:53 PM   #62
theprestige
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 36,892
Originally Posted by I Am The Scum View Post
In addition to Luchog's point, I'm really wondering what free speech has to do with the rise of Nazism in Germany. Suppose we could go back in time to the 30s and promote some kind of free speech principle to a greater degree. Would that have stopped Hitler's rise to power?

This would imply some kind of belief that, "If not for more people talking about X, then the Holocaust would have never happened," and I honestly cannot imagine what X needs to be for that sentence to be true.
X = Nazi regime death vans for murdering the infirm to reduce healthcare costs.
theprestige 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 12th June 2019, 05:09 PM   #63
CaptainHowdy
Graduate Poster
 
CaptainHowdy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 1,272
Originally Posted by luchog View Post
Required multiple wars for that to happen, including the American Revolutionary War, and the War of 1812.




Required the American Civil War to abolish slavery politically, numerous violent and non-violent clashes with government forces, piles of legislation and activism. The fight against the attitudes that would like to re-establish slavery is still ongoing to this day.




Required numerous wars in and outside of the US and still has not been fully accomplished. The US is still an imperialist power which directly or indirectly contributes to the oppression of minorities both domestically and worldwide.




Required a world war and millions of deaths to achieve. Their followers still exist and work to re-establish Nazi worldviews and regimes to this day.




Required decades of the Cold War, propaganda efforts, and economic warfare. There are still oppressive communist regimes in the world, and those seeking to establish such regimes in the US to this day.




See the above comments on Slavery. This is still an ongoing problem in the US, from Jim Crow, to the Civil Rights era, and continuing today. Attempting to end Segregation has required piles of legislation, and often violent force to enforce that legislation and prevent segregationist efforts. Efforts which are still taking place in much of the country, and still involve violent force.




None of the problems you listed were "seen off" by "free speech". In each and every case it has been violent force, or the threat of it, often combined with enacting legislation backed with violent force, to address the problem. Which means that if you're insisting on treating edgelord propaganda the same as all of those other problems were treated, then anti-hate-speech legislation, prosecution, and forceful imprisonment would be proportionally justified. Yet you seem to think that proportionate equivalents to the tactics used to resolve or attempt to resolve those other problems don't apply in this specific case. Why is that, I wonder...
I can see you have great respect for violent action. That does go a long ways towards explaining your belief system.
CaptainHowdy 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 12th June 2019, 05:59 PM   #64
Puppycow
Penultimate Amazing
 
Puppycow's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Posts: 23,668
So what exactly should we do about "edgelord humor" that we aren't already doing?

Surely the answer isn't throwing eggs or milkshakes at people?
__________________
A fool thinks himself to be wise, but a wise man knows himself to be a fool.
William Shakespeare
Puppycow 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 12th June 2019, 06:23 PM   #65
d4m10n
Illuminator
 
d4m10n's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: Mounts Farm
Posts: 4,111
Originally Posted by Puppycow View Post
So what exactly should we do about "edgelord humor" that we aren't already doing?
That's what I was wondering.

I suppose the category is a bit too broad for a general answer...?
__________________
I'm a happy SINner on the Skeptic Ink Network!
Background Probability: Against Irrationality, Innumeracy, and Ignobility
http://skepticink.com/backgroundprobability/
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 12th June 2019, 06:44 PM   #66
smartcooky
Penultimate Amazing
 
smartcooky's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: Nelson, New Zealand
Posts: 12,222
Originally Posted by Puppycow View Post
So what exactly should we do about "edgelord humor" that we aren't already doing?
Lock them in their the parents' basements?
__________________
“Give me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses yearning to breathe free, the wretched refuse of your teeming shore - if they're white!"
If you don't like my posts, my opinions, or my directness then put me on your ignore list.
This will be of benefit to both of us; you won't have to take umbrage at my posts, and I won't have to waste my time talking to you... simples! !
smartcooky 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 12th June 2019, 07:06 PM   #67
Cavemonster
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 5,515
Originally Posted by jimbob View Post
That's throwing the baby out with the bathwater. Both highlight real strategies, and it's probably better to highlight it rather than pretend it doesn't exist.
I think what weaponizes both concepts for use by Trump and his dishonest supporters is partly the catchphrase nature of the phrasing.

We can and absolutely should talk about the phenomena of "fake news" and "stochastic terrorism". But as punchy two word phrases, they become easy tools to dismiss and demonize reporting or to cast the speech of opposition as dangerous violence.

Yes, those are not honest readings of the original intent of the phrases.

Yes, even without those phrases, Trump and his supporters will find other things to spin.

But our thoughtful discussion of these things does not need to happen in catchy phrases. The terms are the bathwater. They're new, they're hardly essential and they're much more useful to the liars than they are to the legitimately concerned.
__________________
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 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 12th June 2019, 07:21 PM   #68
Giz
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Posts: 8,485
Originally Posted by Cavemonster View Post

But our thoughtful discussion .
Oh, stop! Oh my aching sides!
Giz 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 12th June 2019, 07:23 PM   #69
Cavemonster
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 5,515
Originally Posted by Giz View Post
Oh, stop! Oh my aching sides!
You'll need to fill me in on the joke.
__________________
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 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 12th June 2019, 08:21 PM   #70
Puppycow
Penultimate Amazing
 
Puppycow's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Posts: 23,668
Originally Posted by d4m10n View Post
That's what I was wondering.

I suppose the category is a bit too broad for a general answer...?
To go back to one example from the OP, if we're talking about the Daily Stormer, yeah, probably more should be done to shut that guy down. At a minimum, no companies like Google, Facebook or others should do anything to enable him to get his message out. That means, banning him from using any of their services or resources. I assume that steps have already been taken in that direction though. I'm open to suggestions for other actions that could be taken to make life difficult for him.
__________________
A fool thinks himself to be wise, but a wise man knows himself to be a fool.
William Shakespeare
Puppycow 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 13th June 2019, 12:39 AM   #71
uke2se
Penultimate Amazing
 
uke2se's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 13,150
Originally Posted by Puppycow View Post
To go back to one example from the OP, if we're talking about the Daily Stormer, yeah, probably more should be done to shut that guy down. At a minimum, no companies like Google, Facebook or others should do anything to enable him to get his message out. That means, banning him from using any of their services or resources. I assume that steps have already been taken in that direction though. I'm open to suggestions for other actions that could be taken to make life difficult for him.
After Charlottesville, The Daily Stormer started having trouble finding hosts for their website. They jumped around, being constantly taken down until they found a service provider who was out of reach for Western tech companies.

But the Stormer is just one of many alt-right/Nazi sites. All of them should be treated the way we treated ISIS propaganda.

Preferably, the Nazis themselves should be treated the way we treated ISIS terrorists.
__________________
Before you say something stupid about climate change, check this list.

"If we extend unlimited tolerance even to those who are intolerant, if we are not prepared to defend a tolerant society against the onslaught of the intolerant, then the tolerant will be destroyed, and tolerance with them. " Karl Popper, The Open Society and Its Enemies Vol. 1
uke2se 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 13th June 2019, 01:01 AM   #72
Darat
Lackey
Administrator
 
Darat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: South East, UK
Posts: 86,810
Originally Posted by angrysoba View Post
I think if you can demonstrate intent then a person doesn’t need to actually have taken any action.
The quoted example above is in my view clear intent, especially when the context is taken into account.
__________________
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 13th June 2019, 03:52 AM   #73
ponderingturtle
Orthogonal Vector
 
ponderingturtle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 47,170
Originally Posted by Giz View Post
Sigh.

For those who are a bit slow:

Free speech in America was sufficient to rally the people against nazism. That a war was needed for America to stop nazism in a foreign country is hardly the point.

Free speech, in America, has won the debate and rallied a crucial mass on its side in each of the great moral challenges.
Not really no. Hitler declaring war on the US is what got us there, even the previous U boat attacks on american shipping didn't do that. And it wasn't enough to give Anne Frank asylum. I know she didn't deserve it and we were right to tell Hitler that no we would not take his jews and he had to find his own solution to the jewish problem.


I get it you don't see the civil war as a violent action as you seem to think that we got rid of slavery with out violence but in reality it was actually pretty violent.
__________________
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 13th June 2019, 03:56 AM   #74
ponderingturtle
Orthogonal Vector
 
ponderingturtle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 47,170
Originally Posted by Puppycow View Post
So what exactly should we do about "edgelord humor" that we aren't already doing?

Surely the answer isn't throwing eggs or milkshakes at people?
The goal is to treat it like the racism(ect.) it is, not write off racism as just "edgelord humor". I know trolling the libs by chanting "6 million more" at a holocaust remembrance event is really really funny and can not be truly shown to come from an antisemitic place but is just basic trolling but still we should treat it as antisemitic.
__________________
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 13th June 2019, 04:17 AM   #75
Mumbles
Philosopher
 
Mumbles's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 7,089
Originally Posted by Cavemonster View Post
I'm wary if the term "stochastic terrorism" in the same way I was wary of "fake news". And that was one of the few things I was right about around the time of the election.

"Stochastic terrorism" allows criticism and opposition to be cast as an act of violence. If the term gains popularity, it will absolutely be of far most used by the disingenuous right wing to paint their critics as terrorists.
It's really more of a "Group X are our enemies and someone should do something about them!" than any criticism. Dolt 45 screeching that the press is "THE ENEMY OF THE PEOPLE!", as one example, is stochastic terrorism, not criticism.
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 13th June 2019, 05:39 AM   #76
Cavemonster
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 5,515
Originally Posted by Mumbles View Post
It's really more of a "Group X are our enemies and someone should do something about them!" than any criticism. Dolt 45 screeching that the press is "THE ENEMY OF THE PEOPLE!", as one example, is stochastic terrorism, not criticism.
It's not a question of what the term is meant to convey, but how it is likely to be used.

The things they call "Fake news" don't fit the original intended definition either, but the term has been far more effective at rallying Trump supporters and dismissing journalism than it has been as a tool to discuss and warn about actual fake news. In fact, it's use as the former has made it practically useless for the latter.

We would have been better off if original coverage of intentionally misleading stories masquerading as news hadn't been labeled with a two word catchphrase. Going forward, we'd be better off if we don't let a two word catchphrase trend as our way to discuss Trump's thinly veiled calls to violence.
__________________
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 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 13th June 2019, 05:39 AM   #77
Stout
Illuminator
 
Stout's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Canada
Posts: 3,733
Found some "Stochastic Terrorism"

Just dropped in my lap this morning.

Jo Brand told comedy panel show she fantasised about throwing battery acid
Stout 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 13th June 2019, 06:45 AM   #78
luchog
Neo-Post-Retro-Revivalist
 
luchog's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: The Emerald City
Posts: 15,744
Originally Posted by Puppycow View Post
So what exactly should we do about "edgelord humor" that we aren't already doing?

More of what we are already doing. Deplatforming is an important part of controlling and expressing social disapproval of hate speech; but it isn't being done extensively or consistently enough. To prevent radicalization, it's necessary to break up the radicalization pipeline.

More needs to be done to address the activities of domestic terrorists (you know, the ones that Trump and the bulk of the GOP refused to admit are terrorists), to prosecute them for their hate crimes and incitement to commit hate crimes.

What we aren't already doing, at least not to any significant extent, is addressing the root causes of radicalization, the deeply-ingrained social and governmental structures and worldviews that enable and encourage hate and bigotry.

Quote:
Surely the answer isn't throwing eggs or milkshakes at people?

It's a valid tactic if they're spewing their hatred and incitement in a public forum without appropriate actions being taken by authorities.

I think that last part is what certain people are failing to understand (possibly deliberately). This is an example of the failure of the system to address deeply ingrained problems of hatred and bigotry, because the system itself is mired in institutionalized hatred and bigotry. When the system fails, it's the onus of the people to address the problem directly, out of simple self-defense if nothing else. Minimalist actions like egging are a way to do that, to express clear social censure without resorting to outright street brawling like the authorities tend to do.
__________________
"All opinions are not equal. Some are a very great deal more robust, sophisticated and well supported in logic and argument than others." -- Douglas Adams
"The absence of evidence might indeed not be evidence of absence, but it's a pretty good start." -- PhantomWolf
"Let's see the buggers figure that one out." - John Lennon
luchog 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 13th June 2019, 06:55 AM   #79
luchog
Neo-Post-Retro-Revivalist
 
luchog's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: The Emerald City
Posts: 15,744
Originally Posted by Cavemonster View Post
We can and absolutely should talk about the phenomena of "fake news" and "stochastic terrorism". But as punchy two word phrases, they become easy tools to dismiss and demonize reporting or to cast the speech of opposition as dangerous violence.

That's a pointless truism, though. Any phrase/slogan/sound bite can be spun and distorted, just like any symbol can be.

The problem is, humans like easy-to-grasp explanations. Describe something in a one or two word term, you have their attention. That's why we have so many words for things, complex concepts referenced quickly and easily. The moment you have to construct a small paragraph to explain what you're talking about, you're going to rapidly lose listeners. The more complex your language, the less effective it is in mass communication. That's a lesson that the Right has learned very well, and the Left has yet to (it doesn't help that the worldview of the Right is much more easily expressed in simple terms, than the worldview of the Left).

That said, it's extremely unlikely that a term like "stochastic" would ever become a popular sound bite for the Right. It's too obscure and intellectual a word. "Fake News" is simple, clear, and uses commonplace words that everyone is familiar with. "Stochastic" is not on that level, and I can guarantee that very few people outside academia would be at all familiar with it and what it means. It would simply fail to resonate with anyone outside of a tiny handful of intellectuals.

Unfortunately, that also plays against it being a good sound bite for the Left as well; but it's better than having to deliver a huge paragraph-long explanation of the concept every time one wants to address it.
__________________
"All opinions are not equal. Some are a very great deal more robust, sophisticated and well supported in logic and argument than others." -- Douglas Adams
"The absence of evidence might indeed not be evidence of absence, but it's a pretty good start." -- PhantomWolf
"Let's see the buggers figure that one out." - John Lennon
luchog 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 13th June 2019, 11:10 AM   #80
Mumbles
Philosopher
 
Mumbles's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 7,089
Originally Posted by Cavemonster View Post
It's not a question of what the term is meant to convey, but how it is likely to be used.

The things they call "Fake news" don't fit the original intended definition either, but the term has been far more effective at rallying Trump supporters and dismissing journalism than it has been as a tool to discuss and warn about actual fake news. In fact, it's use as the former has made it practically useless for the latter.

We would have been better off if original coverage of intentionally misleading stories masquerading as news hadn't been labeled with a two word catchphrase. Going forward, we'd be better off if we don't let a two word catchphrase trend as our way to discuss Trump's thinly veiled calls to violence.
Other examples include:

Jordan Peterson's freakout over trans people being added to Canada's nondiscrimination law.

Gamergate's freakout over Anita Saarkesian's videos (they're mad that the newest Animal Crossing let's you select a skin color now);

"Guys, don't do that.";

A majority of "reporting" at Breitbart, Townhall, WorldnetDaily, etc.;

the wild misunderstanding of the following words: "triggered", "safe space", "Intersectionality" or "whiteness" - and the insistence that "students" are being "indoctrinated" to hate cis straight white men;

Most videos by youtubers like Chris Ray Gun, Sargon of Akkad, Thequartering, Steve Crowder, Paul Joseph Watson, and so forth.

Yes, we know, they have an industry centered around telling lonely and angry young white men that "the left" hates them and is out to destroy them. That's exactly the point, they do it regardless if they can. And part of the problem is that "edgelord" humor, often little more than spewing insults and slurs, plays a major role is this remarkably aggrieved and oversensitive group, and looks at what that role is and how to counter it.
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
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 12:45 AM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2019, 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.