Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by takyon on Monday August 21 2017, @12:20AM   Printer-friendly
from the internet-hate-cycle dept.

Propublica: Despite Disavowals, Leading Tech Companies Help Extremist Sites Monetize Hate

Most tech companies have policies against working with hate websites. Yet a ProPublica survey found that PayPal, Stripe, Newsmax and others help keep more than half of the most-visited extremist sites in business.

Very interesting:

Because of its "extreme hostility toward Muslims," the website Jihadwatch.org is considered an active hate group by the Southern Poverty Law Center and the Anti-Defamation League. The views of the site's director, Robert Spencer, on Islam led the British Home Office to ban him from entering the country in 2013.

But either not their job, or they just didn't know:

Traditionally, tech companies have justified such relationships by contending that it's not their role to censor the Internet or to discourage legitimate political expression. Also, their management wasn't necessarily aware that they were doing business with hate sites because tech services tend to be automated and based on algorithms tied to demographics.

ProPublica goes on to say:

The sites that we identified from the ADL and SPLC lists vehemently denied that they are hate sites.

"It is not hateful, racist or extremist to oppose jihad terror," said Spencer, the director of Jihad Watch. He added that the true extremism was displayed by groups that seek to censor the Internet and that by asking questions about the tech platforms on his site, we were "aiding and abetting a quintessentially fascist enterprise."

Business is business. IG Farben said much the same when it had exclusive contracts with the (then current) German government.

See also: After Backing Alt-Right in Charlottesville, A.C.L.U. Wrestles With Its Role

Fighting Neo-Nazis and the Future of Free Expression

The Electronic Frontier Foundation has weighed in on the recent controversy surrounding Charlottesville and the effective removal of certain sites from the internet for expressing vile views. This entire incident and our response has an enormous implication on the future of internet freedoms as we know them.

In the wake of Charlottesville, both GoDaddy and Google have refused to manage the domain registration for the Daily Stormer, a neo-Nazi website that, in the words of the Southern Poverty Law Center, is "dedicated to spreading anti-Semitism, neo-Nazism, and white nationalism." Subsequently Cloudflare, whose service was used to protect the site from denial-of-service attacks, has also dropped them as a customer, with a telling quote from Cloudflare's CEO: "Literally, I woke up in a bad mood and decided someone shouldn't be allowed on the Internet. No one should have that power."

The Electronic Frontier Foundation agrees. Even for free speech advocates, this situation is deeply fraught with emotional, logistical, and legal twists and turns. All fair-minded people must stand against the hateful violence and aggression that seems to be growing across our country. But we must also recognize that on the Internet, any tactic used now to silence neo-Nazis will soon be used against others, including people whose opinions we agree with. Those on the left face calls to characterize the Black Lives Matter movement as a hate group. In the Civil Rights Era cases that formed the basis of today's protections of freedom of speech, the NAACP's voice was the one attacked.

Protecting free speech is not something we do because we agree with all of the speech that gets protected. We do it because we believe that no one—not the government and not private commercial enterprises—should decide who gets to speak and who doesn't.

It's notable that in GoDaddy and Google's eagerness to swiftly distance themselves from American neo-Nazis, no process was followed. Policies give guidance as to what we might expect, and an opportunity to see justice is done. We should think carefully before throwing them away.

It might seem unlikely now that Internet companies would turn against sites supporting racial justice or other controversial issues. But if there is a single reason why so many individuals and companies are acting together now to unite against neo-Nazis, it is because a future that seemed unlikely a few years ago—where white nationalists and Nazis have significant power and influence in our society—now seems possible. We would be making a mistake if we assumed that these sorts of censorship decisions would never turn against causes we love.

Part of the work for all of us now is to push back against such dangerous decisions with our own voices and actions. Another part of our work must be to seek to shore up the weakest parts of the Internet's infrastructure so it cannot be easily toppled if matters take a turn for the (even) worse. These actions are not in opposition; they are to the same ends.

We can—and we must—do both.

We're at a very fortunate point in history where most of society is still reasonably just, but people forget how rapidly change can come. Rosa Parks chose to not yield her seat in the United States just 62 years ago. Legally enforced racial segregation ended only 53 years ago. Living at a time with overt segregation feels like a time centuries past. However, many living today were still alive when it was the status quo. And things going in the opposite direction just as rapidly is entirely possible as well. Actions and policies should not be guided by the here and now, but by the justness of said policy. In other words policy should be decided based not on who it effects, but on the justness of the said policy. Is it more just to live in a world where people have the right to say things that others may find distasteful, or where people can be effectively removed from society by the [transitory] powers that be? We should answer these questions in a period of just times, not when we desperately need them resolved to restore justness.

As the EFF's statement reminds us, if certain groups are successful organizations such as Black Lives Matter may end up being characterized as a hate group. Radical left organizations such as Antifa have already been declared a domestic terrorism group by at least one state. And this is just on a government level. Nestle, Bayer, BMW, General Electric, Coca Cola (rebranded just for Nazi Germany as Fanta), Standard Oil (now Exxon/Chevron/BP ), IBM, Random House Publishing, and many more are some companies that cooperated and collaborated with the Nazis. To think that the supercompanies of today somehow would never possibly consider going down the wrong path is simply naive. And in a world where just a handful of companies now have a practical monopoly on information access - that's something that I think should give people pause before jumping to silence even the most vile of speech.


Original Submission #1Original Submission #2Original Submission #3

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 3, Interesting) by c0lo on Monday August 21 2017, @02:08AM (29 children)

    by c0lo (156) Subscriber Badge on Monday August 21 2017, @02:08AM (#556834) Journal

    I don't need a group to tell me what is and isn't a symbol of hate.

    You are free to ignore them, are you not?
    If it is so, I'm just curious: why the vehemence of your post?

    --
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
    Starting Score:    1  point
    Moderation   +1  
       Interesting=1, Total=1
    Extra 'Interesting' Modifier   0  
    Karma-Bonus Modifier   +1  

    Total Score:   3  
  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday August 21 2017, @02:45AM (11 children)

    by Anonymous Coward on Monday August 21 2017, @02:45AM (#556848)

    You are free to ignore them, are you not?

    We are, currently. The dust-up here are the attacks meant to silence those the ADL and SPLC deem as "haters".

    Conversely, isn't the ADL/SLPC free to ignore the "haters" as things are now?

    • (Score: 5, Informative) by c0lo on Monday August 21 2017, @02:51AM (10 children)

      by c0lo (156) Subscriber Badge on Monday August 21 2017, @02:51AM (#556850) Journal

      We are, currently. The dust-up here are the attacks meant to silence those the ADL and SPLC deem as "haters".

      Attacks? Did they (ADL and SPLC) do more than speech?
      Aren't those organization entitled to enjoy the same freedom of speech as everybody else?

      --
      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday August 21 2017, @03:35AM (9 children)

        by Anonymous Coward on Monday August 21 2017, @03:35AM (#556864)

        If you can't just see the circular argument you walked into (and thus damning the ADL and SLPC for trying to silence speech), you're blind.

        • (Score: 2) by c0lo on Monday August 21 2017, @03:49AM (8 children)

          by c0lo (156) Subscriber Badge on Monday August 21 2017, @03:49AM (#556869) Journal

          If you can't just see the circular argument you walked into (and thus damning the ADL and SLPC for trying to silence speech), you're blind.

          I didn't try to make an argument, much less endorse or damn ADL and SLPC.
          I only asked "why the vehemence"? I still haven't got any answer, much less a rational one.

          --
          https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
          • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday August 21 2017, @04:18AM (7 children)

            by Anonymous Coward on Monday August 21 2017, @04:18AM (#556874)

            I only asked "why the vehemence"?

            Your assumption that there was any is on you.

            • (Score: 2) by c0lo on Monday August 21 2017, @04:39AM (5 children)

              by c0lo (156) Subscriber Badge on Monday August 21 2017, @04:39AM (#556884) Journal

              Your assumption that there was any is on you.

              This may indeed be. I'm not a native English speaker, I tend to interpret "damn" as sorta vehemence when inserted into a request, the kind of:

              I don't need a group to tell me what is and isn't a symbol of hate. Show me the information and I can make up my own damn mind.

              ... sounds to me pretty close to "Fuck off, leave me alone, I can decide for myself".

              --
              https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
              • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday August 21 2017, @02:07PM (4 children)

                by Anonymous Coward on Monday August 21 2017, @02:07PM (#557026)

                ... sounds to me pretty close to "Fuck off, leave me alone, I can decide for myself".

                (Ah, the joys of dealing with ACs. The thread parent belonged to one AC, the rest to me. You were very likely correct in asking the original AC about his fervor.)

                However, do you not run an adblocker, or know of other people who do? There are many reasons for doing so, of which just one is a direct response to ignore the cacophony of fork-tonged salesfolk trying nonstop to peddle their junk. The same sentiment usually applies to other noisy screechers around the neck of the woods where SLPC hangs its very fancy hat.

                • (Score: 2) by c0lo on Monday August 21 2017, @02:32PM (3 children)

                  by c0lo (156) Subscriber Badge on Monday August 21 2017, @02:32PM (#557039) Journal

                  However, do you not run an adblocker, or know of other people who do?

                  What for? S/N does not carry any. (grin)

                  Seriously speaking, I used to but no longer run any adblockers - my brain is trained enough to ignore them running on the sides (muted speakers also help) and I close immediately those that popup up one on top of everything - I usually can find that information somewhere else. In time, I even got the know which sites are likely to carry popup ads.

                  --
                  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
                  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday August 21 2017, @02:40PM (2 children)

                    by Anonymous Coward on Monday August 21 2017, @02:40PM (#557044)

                    You evaded the main thrust: some people, often the type to use adblockers, prefer to make up their own minds. To do so requires more than a talking head reading a self-written press release, which is fundamentally what the SPLC does.

                    • (Score: 2) by c0lo on Monday August 21 2017, @03:17PM (1 child)

                      by c0lo (156) Subscriber Badge on Monday August 21 2017, @03:17PM (#557060) Journal

                      You evaded the main thrust:

                      Did I? I though it is fairly obvious that, if I'm able to ignore ads even when not blocked and in spite of being recognized as ads, I'm also able to discern between something with substance and just "noisy screechers around the neck of the woods".

                      some people, often the type to use adblockers, prefer to make up their own minds.

                      Which I also do, just without the help of an adblocker.
                      It's even easier to ignore SPLC than to ignore ads - simply don't visit their site if you wish to ignore them.

                      --
                      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
                      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday August 21 2017, @10:53PM

                        by Anonymous Coward on Monday August 21 2017, @10:53PM (#557262)

                        It's even easier to ignore SPLC than to ignore ads - simply don't visit their site if you wish to ignore them.

                        That might work for you Down Under, but up here in Trumpland, the SPLC is regularly cited as an authoritative source on what constitutes "hate groups", and their self-written press releases (and similar tier "research") are used to justify actual government policies and procedures (in addition to the talking head news of CNN, CNBC, Fox, and all the "news" I guess you don't receive where you are). Knowing that, it doesn't take a genius to quickly see a potential conflict between folks who just want to be left alone versus SLPC-armed government workers who just want to help.

            • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday August 21 2017, @07:54AM

              by Anonymous Coward on Monday August 21 2017, @07:54AM (#556918)

              Your assumption that there was any is on you.

              Fucking Nazi! Enemy of America and all its founding principles! You will be found out, you will become unemployable, ZCupid dating site will de-list you, and your posts on SoylentNews will be marked as Flamebait. Don't like it? Stop being a Nazi! See? Just like this guy! https://www.gq.com/story/charlottesville-white-supremacist-strips-to-escape-protestors [gq.com] So go back to your basement, you fucking racist.

  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday August 21 2017, @04:35AM (7 children)

    by Anonymous Coward on Monday August 21 2017, @04:35AM (#556881)

    You are free to ignore them, are you not?

    Ah, well, yes, you currently are free to ignore their message, but do you really think it wise to ignore them?

    Note the use of the word currently there, history shows what happens to people when they ignore the stuff being spouted by organisations they don't agree with/like/think are unimportant (e.g. NSDAP..)
    There's a hell of a lot of truth in the idiom 'Give them an inch and they'll take a mile.'

    If it is so, I'm just curious: why the vehemence of your post?

    Out of curiosity, why does the poster's 'vehemence' seem to bother you into asking that question? (sorry, but as part of my 'question everything' stance I have to question the questions of other people questioning everything..)

    • (Score: 2) by c0lo on Monday August 21 2017, @04:54AM (6 children)

      by c0lo (156) Subscriber Badge on Monday August 21 2017, @04:54AM (#556885) Journal

      Note the use of the word currently there, history shows what happens to people when they ignore the stuff being spouted by organisations they don't agree with/like/think are unimportant (e.g. NSDAP..)
      There's a hell of a lot of truth in the idiom 'Give them an inch and they'll take a mile.'

      Slippery slope argument much?
      Maybe such an argument would be justified with white supremacists and christian fundamentalists, Charlloteville shows that at least some individuals inside those groups tend to be homicidal.
      But I'm yet to see someone killed by ADL or SPLC, as I'm yet to see someone killed by Breitbart or Fox.

      If it is so, I'm just curious: why the vehemence of your post?

      Out of curiosity, why does the poster's 'vehemence' seem to bother you into asking that question?

      Since when "curiosity" (as in "I'm just curious") is equivalent with "bother"?

      --
      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
      • (Score: 2) by Scrutinizer on Monday August 21 2017, @02:28PM (5 children)

        by Scrutinizer (6534) on Monday August 21 2017, @02:28PM (#557037)

        But I'm yet to see someone killed by ADL or SPLC, as I'm yet to see someone killed by Breitbart or Fox.

        Try LaVoy Finicum [youtube.com], a murdered man [youtube.com] directly associated with the Bundy ranching family from Nevada [oathkeepers.org], which the SPLC crows are [energizing] volatile extremists who are increasingly targeting law enforcement officers [splcenter.org]. (One of the twisted claims is that the Miller murderers were at the Bundy's ranch to support them - without mentioning that the Millers were kicked out ("asked to leave [reviewjournal.com]") by the Bundy family.)

        Would I have any responsibility in your death if I were to spoof my caller ID to use your home's information, then call emergency services and say I've killed one person and am holding other hostage, resulting in SWAT making a surprise appearance in the middle of the night and shooting you dead by mistake? Would I share any responsibility in the trampling deaths of people in the theater I was in when I untruthfully yelled "FIRE!"?

        • (Score: 2) by c0lo on Monday August 21 2017, @03:06PM (4 children)

          by c0lo (156) Subscriber Badge on Monday August 21 2017, @03:06PM (#557057) Journal

          Sorry, I read faster than a reader can speak, so I don't do YouTube other that for DIY stuff... (and nyan cat a notable exception ... grin).
          Thus I'm trying LaVoy Finicum [wikipedia.org] and beat me if I'm seeing any relation with SPLC.

          Would I have any responsibility in your death if I were to spoof my caller ID to use your home's information, then call emergency services and say I've killed one person and am holding other hostage, resulting in SWAT making a surprise appearance in the middle of the night and shooting you dead by mistake?

          Sorry, I can't relate with your reality; in my reality this is highly hypothetical or fiction level.
          My home phone is "private number" (does not appear on the called phone) and Australia doesn't deal with kidnapping by sending on pseudo-military force upfront.

          Here are two of the most recent stand-off incidents around:
          * five hour stand-off with police at a Melbourne home. Man armed with a small handgun [news.com.au]
          * two hours stand-off, man believed to be armed with edged weapon. Police called the Metro Fire Brigade for assistance [heraldsun.com.au]

          --
          https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
          • (Score: 2) by tangomargarine on Monday August 21 2017, @04:13PM

            by tangomargarine (667) on Monday August 21 2017, @04:13PM (#557082)

            Sorry, I can't relate with your reality; in my reality this is highly hypothetical or fiction level.

            Good for you, I guess, but it does happen [wikipedia.org] in the U.S. I'm not sure if people have actually gotten killed yet, but people have definitely gotten shot.

            --
            "Is that really true?" "I just spent the last hour telling you to think for yourself! Didn't you hear anything I said?"
          • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday August 21 2017, @04:38PM (2 children)

            by Anonymous Coward on Monday August 21 2017, @04:38PM (#557097)

            Thus I'm trying LaVoy Finicum [wikipedia.org] and beat me if I'm seeing any relation with SPLC.

            LaVoy Finicum is dead. He was shot while stopped enroute to visit a county sheriff in the company of one of Cliven Bundy's sons (as also mentioned in your wikipedia link), as they were working together at the Malheur facility takeover/protest/etc. SPLC has many words to say about those darn Bundys (as mentioned in my SPLC link), and that's your association with SPLC and LaVoy Finicum: one of those crazy-dangerous extremists out there!! (/s)

            • (Score: 3, Informative) by c0lo on Monday August 21 2017, @05:19PM (1 child)

              by c0lo (156) Subscriber Badge on Monday August 21 2017, @05:19PM (#557118) Journal

              Right, now I get it. You are saying SPLC is bullshitting** about the dangers a crazy-dangerous extremist person who is dead poses to law enforcement.
              And this in response to my "I'm yet to see someone killed by ADL or SPLC". How's this related?

              ** On the same line, I heard about the situation in Sweden and I heard about Bowling Green Massacre...

              --
              https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
              • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday August 21 2017, @11:05PM

                by Anonymous Coward on Monday August 21 2017, @11:05PM (#557267)

                *heavy sigh*

                It's related because, as mentioned previously [soylentnews.org], LaVoy Finicum was murdered after being tarred by the SPLC as an extremist who "increasingly targets law enforcement".

                It's not my fault if you refuse to look at presented evidence and prefer ignorance. (Granted, I also admit to being annoyed at data in video form that is little more than a face regurgitating a news article, but that is not the case with the linked videos concerning LaVoy's murder. It is said that a picture is worth a thousand words, and in said videos, there are a lot of very informative pictures.)

                "He was unarmed" holds very little value by itself to me, but lying about that information is of great interest. In relation to that, here's a shorter video that presents very compelling evidence that US law enforcement lied about the gun they said was found on LaVoy's body [youtube.com]. You may not be a gun person Down Under, but coming from a person who has carried a pistol in the past, the case made in this eight minute video based on a law enforcement-produced photograph is weighty.

  • (Score: 5, Informative) by Arik on Monday August 21 2017, @05:30AM (8 children)

    by Arik (4543) on Monday August 21 2017, @05:30AM (#556891) Journal
    Because they don't want you to be free to ignore them, and they have quite a warchest which they spend in an attempt to make certain you are not, practically, free to ignore them.

    Did you not read the OP? They're explicitly attempting to prevent people who disagree with them from being heard at all. They don't want a debate, they don't want to convince people of their enlightened views, they explicitly, openly, want those who disagree to be permanently silenced. By whatever means necessary.

    So no, some vehemence is called for. This is an organization that's openly working to subvert the free society.
    --
    If laughter is the best medicine, who are the best doctors?
    • (Score: 2) by c0lo on Monday August 21 2017, @08:26AM (7 children)

      by c0lo (156) Subscriber Badge on Monday August 21 2017, @08:26AM (#556924) Journal

      Because they don't want you to be free to ignore them

      Checking ADL [adl.org] - "We never give up trying to build a better world inspired by our democratic sense of unity: There is no them – only us." and above it - checked

      They're explicitly attempting to prevent people who disagree with them from being heard at all.
      ...
      So no, some vehemence is called for.

      As long as they are doing it using speech only, I don't see them any more and neither any less dangerous to free speech than the white supremacists or fundamentalist christians.
      When it comes to actions, then that's where the beef with them may start (in depending the type of the action).

      Do you have examples of situations they explicitly took actions to shutdown speech?
      The way I read TFA, it seems to me ADL/SPLC made noise and it was the others (GoDaddy, Google, CloudFlare) to take action.

      So, my question to you (Arik) is "who are you vehement against: they noisy ones or the ones that acted?"

      --
      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
      • (Score: 2) by Arik on Monday August 21 2017, @08:39AM (6 children)

        by Arik (4543) on Monday August 21 2017, @08:39AM (#556930) Journal
        You know the game here. They generate a bunch of noise and provoke a reaction. It's called no-platforming. It's a cynical tactic that strikes directly at the root of a free society - in order to destroy it. I'm against anyone that practices the tactic, as well as anyone that falls for it. I'm against anyone that thinks that they get to define the boundaries of discourse and banish those who disagree to a soundproof box rather than arguing their case on its merits.

        --
        If laughter is the best medicine, who are the best doctors?
        • (Score: 2) by c0lo on Monday August 21 2017, @08:58AM (5 children)

          by c0lo (156) Subscriber Badge on Monday August 21 2017, @08:58AM (#556935) Journal

          You know the game here.

          No, I actually don't. I'm living in Australia, which doesn't have free-speech constitutional guarantees anyway.

          It's called no-platforming.

          The only thing that turned out in my search and seems related to the issue at hand is No Platform [wikipedia.org].
          This is what you refer to?

          --
          https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
          • (Score: 3, Informative) by Arik on Monday August 21 2017, @09:40AM (3 children)

            by Arik (4543) on Monday August 21 2017, @09:40AM (#556944) Journal
            "No, I actually don't. I'm living in Australia, which doesn't have free-speech constitutional guarantees anyway."

            I'm sorry. You do get some nice weather, but it's not really a compensation.

            "This is what you refer to?"

            Looks to be one example of it, yes.

            "Like other no platform policies, it asserts that no proscribed person or organisation should be given a platform to speak, nor should a union officer share a platform with them."

            It means refusing to engage in any sort of debate. When one is offered, the response is to state categorically that if the person who you disagree with is allowed to speak, you will not. Then get as many people as you can to write the prospective organizers and say the same. Don't let this person speak. If you do, we will boycott, we will picket, we will write letters to the editor, we will call you bad names, and do everything we possibly can to destroy you.

            What's happening is that the wingnuts on the left and the wingnuts on the right are metastasizing together. They've reached the point whether they're competing to see which one can destroy the nation first. No compromise! No conversation! We are right! With us or against us! Join or die!

            A free society cannot exist without some basics. Amongst them being the principle that we do discuss our differences. Our society is a conversation. These people want to turn it into a monologue, which means they want to destroy it.
            --
            If laughter is the best medicine, who are the best doctors?
            • (Score: 2) by c0lo on Monday August 21 2017, @12:30PM (2 children)

              by c0lo (156) Subscriber Badge on Monday August 21 2017, @12:30PM (#556993) Journal

              It means refusing to engage in any sort of debate.

              Mate, believe me, you will grow old enough to be sorry for the time you wasted in pointedly debating some matters.
              The way I'm quite sorry for wasting two minutes of my life watching that incredibly stupid video linked on your other answer.
              True, for the price of the two minutes, I'm better informed now, so good manner indicate that I should be grateful to you (I thank you anyway).
              But, oh God... personal feeling, subjective as it comes, the author of that clip does not worth even booing in a public meeting, s/he should be placed in the type of custodial care for intellectually disabled and stop wasting other people time.

              What's happening is that the wingnuts on the left and the wingnuts on the right are metastasizing together.

              This is unfortunately true. The question is: what is the appropriate reaction?
              And I have a deep feeling sitting along the axis drawn by them (or drawn by others for them to bite from one another) is absolutely more than useless, it's wasteful.
              Aren't there more important things to do with one's life? Like... I don't know... paying off the mortgage, or getting to build something or invent something or... oh, the horror, learn something new instead of pretending "Everybody listen up! I'm the owner of The Truth"?

              Amongst them being the principle that we do discuss our differences. Our society is a conversation.

              Call me pedantic, but there's no conversation if one of the parties doesn't want to participate.
              In this case, both flavors of wingnuts will not hear the other - so what conversation is to be had?
              You point (rightfully) the left wingnuts for no-platforming. It seems a pale reaction in comparison the one the right wingnuts had ("shutting down the conversation by driving a car into a crowd") but, letting aside the matter of the life and limb of the unlucky victims, the result is the same - no conversation!

              A society can function based on "we have enough in common to be able to agree to disagree on the rest of the matters".
              What I don't get: how the (expletive) can the americans forget everything they have in common and focus on the differences?
              And, maybe I'm wrong, but that "everything in common" should be a set rich enough to get them out from the cesspool the "free capital movement" left you in.

              --
              https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
              • (Score: 2) by Arik on Monday August 21 2017, @01:12PM (1 child)

                by Arik (4543) on Monday August 21 2017, @01:12PM (#557008) Journal
                ""Mate, believe me, you will grow old enough to be sorry for the time you wasted in pointedly debating some matters."

                Lol I'll give that a half-truth.

                Yes, it can get tiresome and beyond at times on certain subjects. There can definitely be a time to say 'I'm not debating subject 'x' anymore for a bit, it's done.' That's not the same thing as saying 'I'm not debating *person* 'x' ever again - she's done, she can't even get a job at mcdonalds, she'll starve to death along with her son and that's good cause nits grow into lice.'

                "The way I'm quite sorry for wasting two minutes of my life watching that incredibly stupid video linked on your other answer."

                The islamists and feminists thing right?

                You know I don't think it's that bad. Obviously if you take it seriously there is plenty of critical ground to be had, but take it for what it was meant to be. A lighthearted parody of two groups that have more in common than they'd want you to think. Islamists (NOT Muslims) and 'intersectional' feminists. I'll admit I laughed - and I laughed because it reminded me of specific people that I think have followed their ideology off a cliff. Not because of any general hostility to either Muslims or feminists (I've never been a Muslim but I called myself a feminist for decades and only hesitate to continue to do so because the popular image of the word has changed dramatically.)

                "This is unfortunately true. The question is: what is the appropriate reaction?"

                To oppose them. With logic. With reason. With humility. The things they do not possess.

                "And I have a deep feeling sitting along the axis drawn by them (or drawn by others for them to bite from one another) is absolutely more than useless, it's wasteful."

                This is absolutely correct and true. If you let them draw the lines, your choice is to be a Nazi or a Communist.

                I think it is a moral imperative to refuse to become either.

                "In this case, both flavors of wingnuts will not hear the other - so what conversation is to be had?"

                No conversation may be had between them. It therefore falls upon the rest of us to ensure the something like civilization survives. Some of us may be somewhat successful in communicating with some of them, however, which in the long term leads to defection and collapse.

                "You point (rightfully) the left wingnuts for no-platforming. It seems a pale reaction in comparison the one the right wingnuts had ("shutting down the conversation by driving a car into a crowd") but, letting aside the matter of the life and limb of the unlucky victims, the result is the same - no conversation!"

                There's absolutely no excuse for the vehicular homicide. But there have been dozens of incidents in the past year where the other side has launched vicious attack with the potential to cause death many times as well. I refuse to condone the initiation of force, for any reason. And I also insist on giving both sides the benefit of the doubt here as well - they have been whipped into such a hysteria they view each other as threats and react accordingly.

                That is not a justification for violence on either side. But again, we must have dialogue. We must have understanding. BOTH SIDES have had people do things that are wrong. BOTH SIDES have what they see as good reason to feel defensive. If they will not speak to each other then we in the middle must demand that they speak through us. A house divided against itself cannot stand.

                "What I don't get: how the (expletive) can the americans forget everything they have in common and focus on the differences?"

                We have the media-industrial complex and the education mafia working overtime to divide us.
                --
                If laughter is the best medicine, who are the best doctors?
                • (Score: 2) by c0lo on Monday August 21 2017, @02:01PM

                  by c0lo (156) Subscriber Badge on Monday August 21 2017, @02:01PM (#557025) Journal

                  Yes, it can get tiresome and beyond at times on certain subjects. There can definitely be a time to say 'I'm not debating subject 'x' anymore for a bit, it's done.' That's not the same thing as saying 'I'm not debating *person* 'x' ever again - she's done, she can't even get a job at mcdonalds, she'll starve to death along with her son and that's good cause nits grow into lice.'

                  Maybe I'm lucky, but until now I managed to stop at "'I'm not debating subject 'x' anymore ever with person 'y'" and that was just enough.
                  Actually no, I have to admit at least one occasion when I needed to go to the "I'm not debating *person* 'x' ever again, full stop - I'm done with her, I wish her good luck, let's have a divorce before we get to hating the guts of the other" - turned out OK, no kids in the marriage until then.

                  My question: is it the american society... apologies for the term... so fucked up that, like a "field exchange particle", one needs to stay constantly in "debate mode" otherwise the entire system explodes?

                  Obviously if you take it seriously there is plenty of critical ground to be had

                  I reckon I should be grateful to $deity for not being forced in understanding a background on which projecting the cartoon makes sense.
                  Personal point of view: if that cartoon has any anchor in the local reality of some place, we are speaking about insanity.
                  (PS:I never got to understand what Gamergate was actually about, and I'm sure I don't want to if I can avoid it)

                  But there have been dozens of incidents in the past year where the other side has launched vicious attack with the potential to cause death many times as well.

                  On the scale of Some shop windows broken to Oklahoma City bombing [wikipedia.org], just where would you place those incidents provoked by the other side?

                  That is not a justification for violence on either side. But again, we must have dialogue.

                  Yes.

                  We must have understanding.

                  Not in all cases. Many times "agree to disagree on X, now let's do something about Y, which we both agree is important" is just enough.
                  Not all the things are survival level important - no matter if "media-industrial complex and the education mafia" is trying to manipulate one to believe otherwise.

                  --
                  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
          • (Score: 2) by Arik on Monday August 21 2017, @09:46AM

            by Arik (4543) on Monday August 21 2017, @09:46AM (#556946) Journal
            Here's a recent example of it in action:

            https://www.atheistrev.com/2016/02/the-no-platforming-of-richard-dawkins.html
            --
            If laughter is the best medicine, who are the best doctors?