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.
Tags Facebook incidents , Facebook issues , free speech issues , internet incidents

Reply
Old 24th April 2019, 09:13 AM   #401
Belz...
Fiend God
 
Belz...'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In the details
Posts: 82,207
Originally Posted by sadhatter View Post
You mean other people must adjust.

This is why people hate us on the left. We spend all day coming up with rules that coincidentally have no impact on us but major impact on folks we don't like.
Isn't that one of the fundamental truths about all humans?
__________________
Master of the Shining Darkness

"My views are nonsense. So what?" - BobTheCoward


Belz... 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 24th April 2019, 09:20 AM   #402
Belz...
Fiend God
 
Belz...'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In the details
Posts: 82,207
Originally Posted by Eddie Dane View Post
Evidently, I can listen to hours of right-wing podcasts without hating Jews, laugh my ass off at Alex Jones and still not think school shootings are staged, and I doubt I'll find the Flat Earth society convincing.

I don't think I'm very special at all, but this is a numbers game: 5% of us are idiots and therein lies the problem.
Worse: all of us are idiots in some way or another.
__________________
Master of the Shining Darkness

"My views are nonsense. So what?" - BobTheCoward


Belz... 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 24th April 2019, 09:24 AM   #403
theprestige
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 34,776
Originally Posted by JoeMorgue View Post
This whole crusade you've started against analogies is the dumbest hill anyone's decided to die defending on this board in a long time, and that's saying something.
Analogies are bad arguments.

They're good explanations, at a certain (novice) level of understanding.

The problem is this idea that an analogy works as a proof.

This is the form:

1. A is analogous to B.

2. C is true about B.

3. Therefore, C is also true about A.

Instead of actually proving a claim about A, the arguer begs the question of the analogy between A and B, and then relies on the commonplace acceptance of "C is true about B" to prove his claim about A without ever actually having to argue that claim.

If we try to press past the begged question, and find out exactly how A is analogous to B, such that C is true for both, it turns out the arguer cannot or will not explain that.

And if the arguer did explain how A is analogous to B, it would make the analogy redundant anyway. If you can explain how A is analogous to B, you can prove C in terms of A directly.

My hypothesis is that people who use analogies as arguments often don't really understand A in its own terms. They think they understand it - by analogy with B. So instead of arguing in terms of the thing in question, which they don't understand, they argue in terms of something else they do understand and which they imagine to be properly analogous.

There's another problem with arguments by analogy, in that they're ideal for cherry-picking. It's trivial to make an arbitrary comparison between unlike things, constructed in such a way as to lead directly to the desired "therefore, C is also true about A." But when someone asks how A and B are properly analogous for that argument? Crickets. More importantly, when someone asks to prove C directly in terms of A? Also crickets. The analogy is a dodge, designed to foist the desired conclusion about A, without actually having to prove it - or even argue it in its own terms.

There's also another problem with arguments by analogy, in that analogies are didactic tools, not reasoning tools. Their proper use is by experts, to introduce new ideas to novices in a framework they can easily understand to start with. The goal is that once the novice gets used to the general idea, they will set aside the analogy, and get down to the hard work of mastering the subject in its own terms.

Arguing by analogy attempts to set up a didactic relationship between peers. You're no longer trying to prove your claim by reasoning. Instead, you're trying to set yourself up as the teacher, for whom the claim is already proven and beyond question. You're trying to set your counter-party up as the student, who is not yet entitled to reason with you, but must simply accept your analogy. It's dismissive and infantilizing. And cowardly. You're not the teacher here. Ziggurat is not your student. If you can't argue the thing in its own terms, then you don't understand it well enough to argue it by analogy. And if you *can* argue the thing in its own terms, then you don't need the analogy, and you owe Ziggurat nothing less than the argument itself in its own terms.

I think that after colossal chauvinism, the fetish for analogy-as-argument is probably skepticism's biggest blind spot.

I don't intend to die on that hill, but I will continue to hit it with suppressing fire, in the grand Cyril Figgis tradition.

Last edited by theprestige; 24th April 2019 at 09:28 AM.
theprestige 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 24th April 2019, 09:26 AM   #404
Belz...
Fiend God
 
Belz...'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In the details
Posts: 82,207
Originally Posted by Baylor View Post
Please ask one question per post. People reply to me with these-string-of question posts frequently and it gets annoying
Interesting jabbaesque dodge.

Originally Posted by psionl0 View Post
It wasn't so long ago that everybody in this forum was condemning a baker for refusing to write a pro-gay message on a wedding cake.
I'm sure you see some sort of contradiction there. Homosexuality is not an ideology, violent or otherwise, and though I disagree with the baker's decision (just make the damned cake and take your money), I'm not very comfortable with the idea of forcing them to make the cake.

You can certainly condemn Facebook for doing this. What you can't do is say that those groups' free spech is being curtailed.
__________________
Master of the Shining Darkness

"My views are nonsense. So what?" - BobTheCoward


Belz... 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 24th April 2019, 09:28 AM   #405
dann
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Posts: 7,678
Originally Posted by Baylor View Post
Originally Posted by Craig B View Post
Are citizens of The Hague not Dutch if they are Muslims? What is the religious qualification for being Dutch? I didn't know there was one. Do you have to be a Calvinist Protestant, or something like that?
Please ask one question per post. People reply to me with these-string-of question posts frequently and it gets annoying

I think I can answer that one for Baylor. We all know him well enough by now.

You'd have to be a white Calvininist Protestant to qualify as proper Dutch in his universe, but even so, if you're a little left-leaning, that's a dealbreaker.
__________________
/dann
"Stupidity renders itself invisible by assuming very large proportions. Completely unreasonable claims are irrefutable. Ni-en-leh pointed out that a philosopher might get into trouble by claiming that two times two makes five, but he does not risk much by claiming that two times two makes shoe polish." B. Brecht
"The abolition of religion as the illusory happiness of the people is required for their real happiness. The demand to give up the illusion about its condition is the demand to give up a condition which needs illusions." K. Marx
dann 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 24th April 2019, 09:41 AM   #406
Ziggurat
Penultimate Amazing
 
Ziggurat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 43,211
Originally Posted by Belz... View Post
You can certainly condemn Facebook for doing this. What you can't do is say that those groups' free spech is being curtailed.
Sure you can. Free speech is a broader concept than the first amendment.
__________________
"As long as it is admitted that the law may be diverted from its true purpose -- that it may violate property instead of protecting it -- then everyone will want to participate in making the law, either to protect himself against plunder or to use it for plunder. Political questions will always be prejudicial, dominant, and all-absorbing. There will be fighting at the door of the Legislative Palace, and the struggle within will be no less furious." - Bastiat, The Law
Ziggurat 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 24th April 2019, 09:50 AM   #407
TragicMonkey
Poisoned Waffles
 
TragicMonkey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Monkey
Posts: 49,090
Originally Posted by theprestige View Post
Analogies are bad arguments.

They're good explanations, at a certain (novice) level of understanding.

The problem is this idea that an analogy works as a proof.

This is the form:

1. A is analogous to B.

2. C is true about B.

3. Therefore, C is also true about A.

Instead of actually proving a claim about A, the arguer begs the question of the analogy between A and B, and then relies on the commonplace acceptance of "C is true about B" to prove his claim about A without ever actually having to argue that claim.

If we try to press past the begged question, and find out exactly how A is analogous to B, such that C is true for both, it turns out the arguer cannot or will not explain that.

And if the arguer did explain how A is analogous to B, it would make the analogy redundant anyway. If you can explain how A is analogous to B, you can prove C in terms of A directly.

My hypothesis is that people who use analogies as arguments often don't really understand A in its own terms. They think they understand it - by analogy with B. So instead of arguing in terms of the thing in question, which they don't understand, they argue in terms of something else they do understand and which they imagine to be properly analogous.

There's another problem with arguments by analogy, in that they're ideal for cherry-picking. It's trivial to make an arbitrary comparison between unlike things, constructed in such a way as to lead directly to the desired "therefore, C is also true about A." But when someone asks how A and B are properly analogous for that argument? Crickets. More importantly, when someone asks to prove C directly in terms of A? Also crickets. The analogy is a dodge, designed to foist the desired conclusion about A, without actually having to prove it - or even argue it in its own terms.

There's also another problem with arguments by analogy, in that analogies are didactic tools, not reasoning tools. Their proper use is by experts, to introduce new ideas to novices in a framework they can easily understand to start with. The goal is that once the novice gets used to the general idea, they will set aside the analogy, and get down to the hard work of mastering the subject in its own terms.

Arguing by analogy attempts to set up a didactic relationship between peers. You're no longer trying to prove your claim by reasoning. Instead, you're trying to set yourself up as the teacher, for whom the claim is already proven and beyond question. You're trying to set your counter-party up as the student, who is not yet entitled to reason with you, but must simply accept your analogy. It's dismissive and infantilizing. And cowardly. You're not the teacher here. Ziggurat is not your student. If you can't argue the thing in its own terms, then you don't understand it well enough to argue it by analogy. And if you *can* argue the thing in its own terms, then you don't need the analogy, and you owe Ziggurat nothing less than the argument itself in its own terms.

I think that after colossal chauvinism, the fetish for analogy-as-argument is probably skepticism's biggest blind spot.

I don't intend to die on that hill, but I will continue to hit it with suppressing fire, in the grand Cyril Figgis tradition.
Well said. I realized recently that I use analogies didactically quite a lot in real life, to explain things to people I think are less intelligent than I am. Which may be effective in communicating with them, but it's also patronizing.
__________________
You added nothing to that conversation, Barbara.
TragicMonkey 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 24th April 2019, 10:06 AM   #408
theprestige
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 34,776
Originally Posted by TragicMonkey View Post
Well said. I realized recently that I use analogies didactically quite a lot in real life, to explain things to people I think are less intelligent than I am. Which may be effective in communicating with them, but it's also patronizing.
Probably. It's hard to avoid, I think. Humans reason primarily by intuition and inference. Evaluating experiences abstractly in terms of other experiences is probably one of our superpowers.

And there are situations where you are legitimately a patron. If you are an expert, and inducting a novice, it's totally reasonable to have that unequal power relationship.

The only time analogies bug me is when they're attempted as an easy proof in place of doing the work.
theprestige 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 24th April 2019, 10:06 AM   #409
dann
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Posts: 7,678
Originally Posted by JoeMorgue View Post
This whole crusade you've started against analogies is the dumbest hill anyone's decided to die defending on this board in a long time, and that's saying something.

So what you're saying is that crusades are analogous to dying in the attempt to defend dumb hills?
__________________
/dann
"Stupidity renders itself invisible by assuming very large proportions. Completely unreasonable claims are irrefutable. Ni-en-leh pointed out that a philosopher might get into trouble by claiming that two times two makes five, but he does not risk much by claiming that two times two makes shoe polish." B. Brecht
"The abolition of religion as the illusory happiness of the people is required for their real happiness. The demand to give up the illusion about its condition is the demand to give up a condition which needs illusions." K. Marx
dann 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 24th April 2019, 10:09 AM   #410
dann
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Posts: 7,678
Originally Posted by theprestige View Post
The only time analogies bug me is when they're attempted as an easy proof in place of doing the work.

I am very grateful to Schrödinger for coming up with that cat! Can I keep it?!
__________________
/dann
"Stupidity renders itself invisible by assuming very large proportions. Completely unreasonable claims are irrefutable. Ni-en-leh pointed out that a philosopher might get into trouble by claiming that two times two makes five, but he does not risk much by claiming that two times two makes shoe polish." B. Brecht
"The abolition of religion as the illusory happiness of the people is required for their real happiness. The demand to give up the illusion about its condition is the demand to give up a condition which needs illusions." K. Marx

Last edited by dann; 24th April 2019 at 10:11 AM.
dann 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 24th April 2019, 10:15 AM   #411
psionl0
Skeptical about skeptics
 
psionl0's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: 31°57'S 115°57'E
Posts: 14,436
Originally Posted by Belz... View Post
You can certainly condemn Facebook for doing this. What you can't do is say that those groups' free spech is being curtailed.
I'm certainly not condemning facebook. in fact, near the beginning of this thread I stated that facebook absolutely has the right to do this.

I was just pointing out that whether refusing to provide a vehicle for a message meets approval in this forum or not depends on the message.
__________________
"The process by which banks create money is so simple that the mind is repelled. Where something so important is involved, a deeper mystery seems only decent." - Galbraith, 1975
psionl0 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 24th April 2019, 10:51 AM   #412
isissxn
Rough Around the Edges
 
isissxn's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2014
Location: Deep Storage
Posts: 5,631
deleted, read your post completely backward, psion10.

Sorry!

Last edited by isissxn; 24th April 2019 at 10:54 AM.
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 24th April 2019, 11:06 AM   #413
theprestige
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 34,776
Originally Posted by dann View Post
So what you're saying is that crusades are analogous to dying in the attempt to defend dumb hills? : )
More of a metaphor, really.
theprestige 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 24th April 2019, 11:07 AM   #414
theprestige
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 34,776
Originally Posted by dann View Post
I am very grateful to Schrödinger for coming up with that cat! Can I keep it?!
What are you talking about?
theprestige 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 24th April 2019, 11:14 AM   #415
tyr_13
Penultimate Amazing
 
tyr_13's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 15,970
Originally Posted by theprestige View Post
What are you talking about?
They might have found a cat.
__________________
Circled nothing is still nothing.
"Nothing will stop the U.S. from being a world leader, not even a handful of adults who want their kids to take science lessons from a book that mentions unicorns six times." -UNLoVedRebel
Mumpsimus: a stubborn person who insists on making an error in spite of being shown that it is wrong
tyr_13 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 24th April 2019, 12:28 PM   #416
uke2se
Penultimate Amazing
 
uke2se's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 12,782
Sexual orientation is protected. Being a Nazi isn't.
__________________
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 24th April 2019, 12:43 PM   #417
Skeptic Ginger
Nasty Woman
 
Skeptic Ginger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 73,897
Originally Posted by Baylor View Post
That'd be a wrong interpretation. If he'd ask just one well-thought out question, I'd be happy to answer it.
So pick one to answer. Problem solved.
__________________
Restore checks and balances no matter your party affiliation.
Skeptic Ginger 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 24th April 2019, 12:45 PM   #418
Skeptic Ginger
Nasty Woman
 
Skeptic Ginger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 73,897
Originally Posted by Belz... View Post
Except that private businesses are under no obligation to let everyone speak.
He keeps fluctuating back and forth on that.
__________________
Restore checks and balances no matter your party affiliation.
Skeptic Ginger 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 24th April 2019, 12:47 PM   #419
Skeptic Ginger
Nasty Woman
 
Skeptic Ginger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 73,897
Originally Posted by isissxn View Post
...It's the same reason I don't just piss on myself when I'm alone.
__________________
Restore checks and balances no matter your party affiliation.
Skeptic Ginger 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 24th April 2019, 12:50 PM   #420
Skeptic Ginger
Nasty Woman
 
Skeptic Ginger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 73,897
Originally Posted by psionl0 View Post
It wasn't so long ago that everybody in this forum was condemning a baker for refusing to write a pro-gay message on a wedding cake.

Apparently the right to refuse to provide a soapbox for somebody only applies when politically incorrect [inciting violence] views are concerned.
ftfy
__________________
Restore checks and balances no matter your party affiliation.
Skeptic Ginger 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 24th April 2019, 01:00 PM   #421
I Am The Scum
Illuminator
 
I Am The Scum's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 3,848
Originally Posted by psionl0 View Post
It wasn't so long ago that everybody in this forum was condemning a baker for refusing to write a pro-gay message on a wedding cake.
The highlighted never happened.
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 24th April 2019, 01:05 PM   #422
Skeptic Ginger
Nasty Woman
 
Skeptic Ginger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 73,897
Originally Posted by I Am The Scum View Post
The highlighted never happened.
Good catch.
__________________
Restore checks and balances no matter your party affiliation.
Skeptic Ginger 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 24th April 2019, 01:11 PM   #423
Skeptic Ginger
Nasty Woman
 
Skeptic Ginger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 73,897
So are we including Twitter in this discussion? I could put this in the Mueller thread but is seems broader than that. Or maybe it needs a new thread altogether.

Boing Boing: Twitter kills network of 5,000 pro-Trump bots linked to Saudi propaganda
Quote:
The bot network repeatedly denounced the Mueller report as a 'RussiaGate hoax.'

The social networking service Twitter says it has shut down some 5,000 accounts that were acting as automated pro-Trump propaganda bots. Before they were doing this, they were spewing Saudi propaganda, so they're presumed to be linked to the Saudi state.


Sean Gallagher at Ars Technica reports that one of the tweets the bot network distributed read, "The people screaming about Trump working for Russia are the same people demanding social media censor 'misinformation', Stop listening to these people."
It's linked to Saudi propaganda because that's what the bot network pushed previously. I'm not sure who is behind the network, and neither is Twitter apparently.
__________________
Restore checks and balances no matter your party affiliation.

Last edited by Skeptic Ginger; 24th April 2019 at 01:12 PM.
Skeptic Ginger 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 24th April 2019, 01:33 PM   #424
Ziggurat
Penultimate Amazing
 
Ziggurat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 43,211
Originally Posted by uke2se View Post
Sexual orientation is protected. Being a Nazi isn't.
More correctly, political affiliation is usually not protected (it is under California employment law, but not federal). That includes being a Democrat or a Republican, BTW. You can be discriminated against for that as well. So, yay! I guess?
__________________
"As long as it is admitted that the law may be diverted from its true purpose -- that it may violate property instead of protecting it -- then everyone will want to participate in making the law, either to protect himself against plunder or to use it for plunder. Political questions will always be prejudicial, dominant, and all-absorbing. There will be fighting at the door of the Legislative Palace, and the struggle within will be no less furious." - Bastiat, The Law
Ziggurat 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 24th April 2019, 02:05 PM   #425
zooterkin
Nitpicking dilettante
Deputy Admin
 
zooterkin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Berkshire, mostly
Posts: 42,649
Originally Posted by Belz... View Post
"Excuse me, sir. You can't pee on the rug. I'm going to have to ask you to leave."

"That's oppressive and discriminatory! How about my right to pee?"
Hey, man, that rug really tied the room together.

******* Nazis.
__________________
The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, and wiser people so full of doubts.Bertrand Russell
Zooterkin is correct Darat
Nerd! Hokulele
Join the JREF Folders ! Team 13232
Ezekiel 23:20
zooterkin 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 24th April 2019, 05:28 PM   #426
Baylor
Suspended
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 7,752
Originally Posted by Craig B View Post
You're being facetious I take it, or more likely intentionally obstructive. Just answer the question if there is any religious qualification for being Dutch, if you will.
The Muslims of middle Eastern ethnicity are not Dutch any more than George Orwell was Indian or Richard Dawkins is Kenyan.
Baylor 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 24th April 2019, 05:32 PM   #427
Baylor
Suspended
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 7,752
Originally Posted by jimbob View Post
Do you realise the difference between a tasteless fancy dress choice (for which the prince was rightly criticised) and actually espousing Nazi ideology?

Or are you implying that the Charlottesville marchers were in fancy dress and weren't neo Nazis?

If not, what are you implying, and what is the point of you posting that image?
The point is the people on this forum have no conviction in what they say. When physically assaulting a "Nazi" requires sacrifice, even possibly loss of life, suddenly the tough guys aren't so tough.
Baylor 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 24th April 2019, 06:49 PM   #428
Brainster
Penultimate Amazing
 
Brainster's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 16,518
Originally Posted by Ziggurat View Post
More correctly, political affiliation is usually not protected (it is under California employment law, but not federal). That includes being a Democrat or a Republican, BTW. You can be discriminated against for that as well. So, yay! I guess?
What about freedom of association? That was what the baker in Colorado was arguing was at risk in his case; he did not want his products associated with something he felt was morally wrong. As I see it, that same right applies to Facebook. It's why I think private universities are on solid ground banning whomever they want to from speaking, while public (because they are public) universities don't have that option.

As a practical matter, what do you think should be done from here? Should the far-right groups sue Facebook for access? Should the courts rule in their favor? I'm even more uncomfortable with that than I would be with Facebook deciding to ban all Republicans and conservatives.
__________________
My new blog: Recent Reads.
1960s Comic Book Nostalgia
Visit the Screw Loose Change blog.

Last edited by Brainster; 24th April 2019 at 06:57 PM.
Brainster 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 24th April 2019, 06:58 PM   #429
mgidm86
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Posts: 5,358
Ban Facebook.
__________________
Franklin understands certain kickbacks you obtain unfairly are legal liabilities; however, a risky deed's almost never detrimental despite extra external pressures.
mgidm86 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 24th April 2019, 07:21 PM   #430
Roboramma
Penultimate Amazing
 
Roboramma's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Shanghai
Posts: 12,325
Originally Posted by dann View Post
I am very grateful to Schrödinger for coming up with that cat! Can I keep it?!
That wasn’t an analogy.
__________________
"... when people thought the Earth was flat, they were wrong. When people thought the Earth was spherical they were wrong. But if you think that thinking the Earth is spherical is just as wrong as thinking the Earth is flat, then your view is wronger than both of them put together."
Isaac Asimov
Roboramma 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 24th April 2019, 09:59 PM   #431
psionl0
Skeptical about skeptics
 
psionl0's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: 31°57'S 115°57'E
Posts: 14,436
Originally Posted by I Am The Scum View Post
The highlighted never happened.

Sorry, the passage of time has dulled my memory. The case was about refusing to bake a cake.
Quote:
Craig and Mullins visited Masterpiece Cakeshop in Lakewood, Colorado in July 2012 to order a wedding cake for their return celebration. Masterpiece's owner Jack Phillips, who is a Christian, declined their cake request, informing the couple that he did not create wedding cakes for marriages of gay couples owing to his Christian religious beliefs, although the couple could purchase other baked goods in the store.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Master...hts_Commission

There was also a thread here about a baker who refused to include anti-gay messages on a cake.
http://www.internationalskeptics.com...d.php?t=291345
__________________
"The process by which banks create money is so simple that the mind is repelled. Where something so important is involved, a deeper mystery seems only decent." - Galbraith, 1975

Last edited by psionl0; 24th April 2019 at 10:21 PM.
psionl0 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 24th April 2019, 10:07 PM   #432
psionl0
Skeptical about skeptics
 
psionl0's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: 31°57'S 115°57'E
Posts: 14,436
Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger View Post
ftfy
Not even close. Few people here would object to a statement like "SWMs are evil" but change that word to "gays" and all hell breaks loose.

As I have posted before, inciting violence is not on but that should not extend to mere opinion. Even being a member of a Nazi club is not in itself proof that somebody is inciting violence nor intends to do so of their own accord.
__________________
"The process by which banks create money is so simple that the mind is repelled. Where something so important is involved, a deeper mystery seems only decent." - Galbraith, 1975

Last edited by psionl0; 24th April 2019 at 10:12 PM.
psionl0 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 24th April 2019, 10:09 PM   #433
Ziggurat
Penultimate Amazing
 
Ziggurat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 43,211
Originally Posted by Brainster View Post
As a practical matter, what do you think should be done from here? Should the far-right groups sue Facebook for access? Should the courts rule in their favor? I'm even more uncomfortable with that than I would be with Facebook deciding to ban all Republicans and conservatives.
I think they only have grounds to sue Facebook if they didn’t violate Facebook’s written terms of service. I don’t know if that is the case here or not. It’s entirely possible they did, there are bad people out there who write bad things. But Facebook has is the past taken action against people who didn’t violate terms of service, so it’s possible they did so again here. If so, I’d be happy for Facebook to get sued and lose, but the legal basis would be a contract violation, not free speech.

More generally, Facebook should be shamed for its bias. I also wouldn’t mind the government breaking them up over their privacy abuses, and that might incidentally help with their bias, but that’s still a different matter.
__________________
"As long as it is admitted that the law may be diverted from its true purpose -- that it may violate property instead of protecting it -- then everyone will want to participate in making the law, either to protect himself against plunder or to use it for plunder. Political questions will always be prejudicial, dominant, and all-absorbing. There will be fighting at the door of the Legislative Palace, and the struggle within will be no less furious." - Bastiat, The Law
Ziggurat 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 24th April 2019, 10:42 PM   #434
Skeptic Ginger
Nasty Woman
 
Skeptic Ginger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 73,897
Originally Posted by psionl0 View Post
Not even close. Few people here would object to a statement like "SWMs are evil" but change that word to "gays" and all hell breaks loose.

As I have posted before, inciting violence is not on but that should not extend to mere opinion. Even being a member of a Nazi club is not in itself proof that somebody is inciting violence nor intends to do so of their own accord.
I see inciting violence as the basis for banning people/closing accounts.

In addition bot accounts and amplified propaganda is being addressed as it should be.

Others in this discussion claim it's ideology that is the basis of the deleted material.

Prove it. Prove there are cases where political ideology is the only basis for closing accounts.
__________________
Restore checks and balances no matter your party affiliation.
Skeptic Ginger 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 24th April 2019, 11:02 PM   #435
psionl0
Skeptical about skeptics
 
psionl0's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: 31°57'S 115°57'E
Posts: 14,436
Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger View Post
I see inciting violence as the basis for banning people/closing accounts.
Didn't I just say that inciting violence is not on?
__________________
"The process by which banks create money is so simple that the mind is repelled. Where something so important is involved, a deeper mystery seems only decent." - Galbraith, 1975
psionl0 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 24th April 2019, 11:05 PM   #436
Skeptic Ginger
Nasty Woman
 
Skeptic Ginger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 73,897
Here, I'll make it easy for people. Media Matters has complied a list. See if you can find the accounts FB is banning that are innocent little right-wingers.

Facebook says it is [deleted to fix the link] white nationalism. Here are some places it can start.

The problem as I see it is white nationalism as it is currently manifested, sucks. So is that the problem? The posters here who are objecting to FB policies essentially don't like to see white nationalism groups censored?

Might have to give up some of that white male privilege. I can see the problem.
__________________
Restore checks and balances no matter your party affiliation.

Last edited by Skeptic Ginger; 24th April 2019 at 11:06 PM.
Skeptic Ginger 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 24th April 2019, 11:08 PM   #437
Skeptic Ginger
Nasty Woman
 
Skeptic Ginger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 73,897
Originally Posted by psionl0 View Post
Didn't I just say that inciting violence is not on?
You said it shouldn't extend to mere opinion. I said prove said opinion does not promote violence.
__________________
Restore checks and balances no matter your party affiliation.
Skeptic Ginger 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 24th April 2019, 11:26 PM   #438
smartcooky
Penultimate Amazing
 
smartcooky's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: Nelson, New Zealand
Posts: 11,633
Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger View Post
Here, I'll make it easy for people. Media Matters has complied a list. See if you can find the accounts FB is banning that are innocent little right-wingers.

Facebook says it is [deleted to fix the link] white nationalism. Here are some places it can start.

The problem as I see it is white nationalism as it is currently manifested, sucks. So is that the problem? The posters here who are objecting to FB policies essentially don't like to see white nationalism groups censored?

Might have to give up some of that white male privilege. I can see the problem.
I don't have any problem with any of those groups being barred from FB, YT twitter etc.

I also find it deeply disturbing that Jeanine Pirro was a Judge and a DA. How does a white nationalist, racist piece of scum like Pirro get on the bench?
__________________
#THEYAREUS
The Mueller Report must be released to Congress in full - If Trump has nothing to hide, then he should also have nothing to fear!
smartcooky 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 24th April 2019, 11:46 PM   #439
Mumbles
Philosopher
 
Mumbles's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 6,928
Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger View Post
So are we including Twitter in this discussion? I could put this in the Mueller thread but is seems broader than that. Or maybe it needs a new thread altogether.

Boing Boing: Twitter kills network of 5,000 pro-Trump bots linked to Saudi propaganda

It's linked to Saudi propaganda because that's what the bot network pushed previously. I'm not sure who is behind the network, and neither is Twitter apparently.
Twitter has improved as far as bans against anti-racists go, at least. They aren't as aggressive at banning people for calling someone a Nazi (especially when responding to pictures of Pepe in an SS uniform throwing people into gas chambers), and I haven't seen anyone get a flood of slurs and insults after criticising, say, Bernie Sanders - there's still hostility, but there's no "Bitch this, N-word that." in the responses. And people like Richard Spencer, who at least know how to put on a non-violent public face (trust that he *would* turn genocidal given the chance) were still there last I checked.

Their competitor, Gab, is a great example of why you *want* to kick that sort of person out - in theory, it's a place where almost any speech is allowed to flourish. In reality, it's the place where neo-nazis, white supremacists, and other obnoxious hateful people go when they get kicked off of Twitter - and where they spend all their time metaphorically knifing one another, because that's what people who are addicted to hatred end up doing.
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 24th April 2019, 11:55 PM   #440
Ziggurat
Penultimate Amazing
 
Ziggurat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 43,211
Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger View Post
You said it shouldn't extend to mere opinion. I said prove said opinion does not promote violence.
That’s not how this works. That’s not how any of this works.
__________________
"As long as it is admitted that the law may be diverted from its true purpose -- that it may violate property instead of protecting it -- then everyone will want to participate in making the law, either to protect himself against plunder or to use it for plunder. Political questions will always be prejudicial, dominant, and all-absorbing. There will be fighting at the door of the Legislative Palace, and the struggle within will be no less furious." - Bastiat, The Law
Ziggurat 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 08:39 PM.
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.