SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
from the threw-the-facebook-out-with-the-vax-water dept.
Facebook cracks down on vaccine misinformation
In a blog post, the Menlo Park, Calif. company said it will reject any ads containing misinformation about vaccines, remove any targeted advertising options like 'vaccine controversies,' and will no longer show or recommend content containing this type of misinformation on Instagram Explore or hashtag pages."
Submitted via IRC for FatPhil
Combatting Vaccine Misinformation
We are working to tackle vaccine misinformation on Facebook by reducing its distribution and providing people with authoritative information on the topic.
[...] Leading global health organizations, such as the World Health Organization and the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, have publicly identified verifiable vaccine hoaxes. If these vaccine hoaxes appear on Facebook, we will take action against them.
For example, if a group or Page admin posts this vaccine misinformation, we will exclude the entire group or Page from recommendations, reduce these groups and Pages’ distribution in News Feed and Search, and reject ads with this misinformation.
We also believe in providing people with additional context so they can decide whether to read, share, or engage in conversations about information they see on Facebook. We are exploring ways to give people more accurate information from expert organizations about vaccines at the top of results for related searches, on Pages discussing the topic, and on invitations to join groups about the topic. We will have an update on this soon.
We are fully committed to the safety of our community and will continue to expand on this work.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by All Your Lawn Are Belong To Us on Thursday March 14 2019, @03:46PM (52 children)
Your other fault: These are not ideas that one "doesn't like". These are ideas which are patent nonsense that any rational thinking person will not accept. I'm very surprised Danny didn't add Holocaust Denial into the mix. No, I don't have to give them "equal time" or acknowledge that someone who believes in them are entitled to their beliefs. There are no, "alternative facts," or, "reasonable doubt," or, "maybe it just could be right after all." No more so than if someone comes up to me and says Pi is equal to 3.0 or 1+1=1.999999999999999999.
Yes, I am entitled to say that anyone who believes in any of the above (Alex Jones is the questionable one, but I'll roll with it) is not a true Scotsman.
We now return you to your beautiful delusions.
This sig for rent.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday March 14 2019, @03:56PM (21 children)
LOL, you mean patent nonsense like every religion throughout history has been filled with?
You both live in an echo chamber and are clueless about the world if you think it is "reasonable" to ban discussion of ideas. The "rational thinking person" is a minority and will be the one oppressed in the end.
I don't know how you can be so ignorant as to not realize this. What country were you educated in?
(Score: 3, Insightful) by All Your Lawn Are Belong To Us on Thursday March 14 2019, @04:31PM (20 children)
No, I mean things which are patently and demonstrably false. These are not "ideas," they are falsehoods. Danny did show above that there is a line at which one may, and should, question what is true. However, that the Earth is round, the Moon landing happened as did the Holocaust, that Homeopathy has been demonstrated to be wishful thinking (where chelation actually has scientific merit in a very limited sense), and that vaccines do in fact work (and do not cause autism) are not topics of discussion which reasonable people may differ over. They are fact.
Being open minded does not mean allowing your brains to leak out of your ears.
But that's about all I have to say about that, and enjoy the rest of your troll if that was what you were intending to accomplish. If not, I wish you the best and hope that someday you're better able to distinguish fact from opinion.
This sig for rent.
(Score: -1, Redundant) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday March 14 2019, @06:07PM (18 children)
This is literally no different than saying "The sun goes around the earth". It is a "not even wrong" statement. The earth is whatever shape it takes in the geometry you choose to use. Using the standard in science, the earth is "flat" and the local geometry is curved due to the mass of the earth.
Where was this demonstrated?
(Score: 2, Insightful) by khallow on Thursday March 14 2019, @07:19PM (17 children)
Not at all. The intrinsic curvature of Earth remains the same no matter what geometry you use.
This is not due to relativistic effects. It's curved as an oblate spheroid because that shape happens to be almost the lowest potential gravitational energy of that much mass given its resistance to further compression.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday March 14 2019, @07:43PM (16 children)
The reason light "curves" when it passes the sun is because space-time itself is curved. The photons are traveling in a straight line from their perspective. Same with satellites orbiting the earth. The path may appear curved, but it is actually a straight line along a curved geometry. It is explained quite clearly here:
https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/3009/how-exactly-does-curved-space-time-describe-the-force-of-gravity [stackexchange.com] [stackexchange.com]
(Score: 1) by khallow on Thursday March 14 2019, @08:28PM (15 children)
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday March 14 2019, @08:38PM (14 children)
So now you are saying GR only applies in outer space? Space-time suddenly stops curving when you get near the earth?
(Score: 1) by khallow on Thursday March 14 2019, @08:57PM (13 children)
Are you saying that you're still beating your wife? I guess not, huh.
As I noted earlier, those things are irrelevant because they don't explain the curvature of the Earth. I then explained what was relevant. That's all.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday March 14 2019, @09:06PM (12 children)
You don't seem to be making any sense.
The earth is curved due to gravity right? That is the "force" that formed the earth and is holding it together?
(Score: 1) by khallow on Thursday March 14 2019, @09:15PM (11 children)
Yes and no. It's curved because that shape is the minimum potential energy configuration given both gravity and EM repulsion of the atoms that make up the Earth.
And electrmagnetism is the force keeping the Earth from collapsing to a small mass. Neither has anything to do with orbital trajectories or curvature of space due to the mass.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday March 14 2019, @09:30PM (10 children)
Is space-curved on the earth or not according to you? You keep avoiding the question.
Obviously it must be curved if you accept the earth curves the space around it, but then you say this has nothing to do with the curvature of the earth. That makes no sense. Do you mean to say the earth is also curved further on top of that due to space-time warping?
(Score: 1) by khallow on Thursday March 14 2019, @10:02PM (9 children)
You keep asking irrelevant questions. I notice that you have been evading that loaded question about wife beating too. Very suspicious!
Indeed. A sphere made of lead should be slightly more curved than a sphere made of aerogel due to the above described GR (General Relativity) effects, but the curvature of their respective surfaces is both going to be almost identical (due to the near immeasurability of GR at those scales) and have a positive scalar curvature due on the spherical surface which is irrelevant to GR.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday March 14 2019, @10:16PM (8 children)
It doesn't make sense that the paths of stuff in orbit are so affected by this curvature of spacetime, but then it becomes irrelevant/negligible at the surface.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Thursday March 14 2019, @10:24PM (7 children)
Welcome to basic physics! You experience 9.8 m/s^2 of acceleration due to that gravity at the Earth's surface. It's only the matter underneath you pushing up that keeps you in one place. Meanwhile in space, you have to go something like 9-10km/s to stay in orbit without falling to Earth.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday March 14 2019, @10:44PM (6 children)
Yea, they fall straight towards the center of the earth, because it is a gravity well (spacetime is curved). Sorry, but your "explanations" do not make sense.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Thursday March 14 2019, @11:30PM (5 children)
Welcome to basic physics. They aren't falling straight with 10 km/s of sideways motion.
(Score: 3, Touché) by PartTimeZombie on Friday March 15 2019, @01:14AM (2 children)
Holy moly!
That was hugely entertaining! It might well be the weirdest flat-earth debate I've ever seen. You both seem to hold that the earth is not flat, but the A/C is also arguing that it is flat at the same time, if you squint at it.
Or something. Also physics. Awesome. Made my day.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Friday March 15 2019, @03:00AM (1 child)
(Score: 1) by FatPhil on Friday March 15 2019, @02:38PM
I think the problem he has is that he doesn't understand that he curvature of spacetime is the curvature of 4-D spacetime, and that's a different concept from the geometric curvature of a 3-D subspace taken at an arbitrary observer's instant of time. The former induces the latter, but, depending on the observer, the latter can have a huge range of different properties, including that of what is parallel to what. All observers of interest or relevance will view the spacial curvature of the earth to be a real thing. Some (such as cosmic rays) might see the earth superficially as a pancake, but even those would be forced to admit that it is still fatter at the (possibly-ever-moving) middle and then narrows to a sharp edge at the (ever-changing) horizon.
Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people; the smallest discuss themselves
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday March 15 2019, @03:29AM (1 child)
So, the amount of curvature depends on how fast the object is moving?
(Score: 1) by khallow on Friday March 15 2019, @02:24PM
Note the use of the word, "sideways". 10 kilometers per second is about 110 US football field lengths a second. If the Earth were a point mass, then every orbit would trace out an ellipse relative to the Earth. How close to circular it was would depend on how close the centrifugal force of the sideways motion came to countering the pull of gravity. The curvature as such remains the same, but trajectories of faster objects don't curve as much.
(Score: -1, Flamebait) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday March 14 2019, @06:28PM
No, the holohoax is bullshit. read Tell the Truth and Shame the Devil. Vaccines do cause damage and much of it is likely slipping under the radar as lowered intelligence. You're just a kiss ass, authoritarian wanna be.
(Score: 2) by Rivenaleem on Friday March 15 2019, @10:28AM (29 children)
Hi, you might be interested to know that 1 + 1 = 1.999 (recurring) as the number 0.9 recurring is equal to 1.
In your defense, you didn't say 1.9 recurring, so you are still correct. You can read more here:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/0.999... [wikipedia.org]
(Score: 2) by All Your Lawn Are Belong To Us on Friday March 15 2019, @02:48PM (28 children)
No problem. Go find me 1.99999999999 mathematicians. When you get exactly 1.99999999999 mathematicians to tell me I am wrong - no more and no less - I will believe your proof. (No, amputation is not acceptable in this proof.) My slimy out could be instead that I didn't specify but used a data type here of integer but didn't have to declare it because English is not required to be strongly typed. I gave you two integers on the left side of the equation and a non-integer value on the right. This is proof that English and Python should likewise be banned and that all communication should be carried out in C or Pascal.
But seriously, not a bad catch at all, but exactly the point on both sides of the issue. Strict mathematics (ultrafinitism aside) says you're right. In practice, should this be a debatable thing? Nope. I was wrong in my example, and that should be the end of it. The best one should do is ask if my number was repeating or not (or what data type I was using ;) ), or point out the error (maybe point out the Wikipedia page for the doubter) and go on our merry. Much better than carrying out a posts-long discussion about data typing.
This sig for rent.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Friday March 15 2019, @03:32PM (27 children)
How about the huge number of 1.9999999999 computers out there? The usual float doesn't have that many significant digits and thus, 2 and 1.99999999999 are the same to these devices. Seems weird to ban speech about a common technological limitation, hmm?
Now, I don't know where you were going with this thread. But people aren't always "rational thinking" and if we started banning speech on such grounds, eventually (if not right away!) the censors will be people who aren't rationally thinking at the time (and perhaps never). Then other stuff will be banned as well. Best not to do it at all no matter how foolish the speech is.
(Score: 2) by All Your Lawn Are Belong To Us on Friday March 15 2019, @07:47PM (26 children)
Where I was going with this thread? Pretty simple. There are lots of things that don't require debate or discussion in life. There are lots of things that to allow "discussion" about them as if they were rational subjects does absolutely nothing for individuals or society at large, and in fact causes damage. Please justify for me why it is rational to debate whether the Holocaust existed, or why I should give a moon conspiracy theorist any of my brainpower. Or why I should be bothered in the slightest that Facebook has no problem rejecting the false arguments of anti-vaxxers? Does that mean that people who speak of such should be arrested or incarcerated? No. But it also doesn't mean that such idiocies should be given the time of day. And if such arguments are simply rejected for the falsehoods they are - stomped on for the lies they are - then one's time does not have to be spent pointing out for the umpteenth time what the facts are.
This sig for rent.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Friday March 15 2019, @08:06PM (25 children)
Like your opinion above? I notice the 1+1 = 1.99999999999 thing sort of disappeared, but the opinion didn't change.
Let's start with the second point. The right to speak is not the right to force other people to listen to you. You don't and shouldn't have to give a moon conspiracy theorist any of your brainpower. But if you choose to do so, then it's not a reason to suppress their speech. Now for the first point, debating whether the Holocaust existed means that you are exposed to the evidence for what happened, not merely taking on faith that Nazis were bad. Critical thinking means not only being able to deal with these things, but exposing yourself on a regular basis to contrary viewpoints if only to dismiss them on a rational basis.
Who gets to decide which arguments are simply rejected? It's a fail right here. Once the nutcases get ahold of that lever, then none of our speech is safe.
(Score: 2) by All Your Lawn Are Belong To Us on Friday March 15 2019, @09:40PM (24 children)
You still have not provided me with exactly 1.99999999999 mathematicians to agree with me, only that a computer might estimate it as 2. You still need to provide me with exactly 1.99999999999 mathematicians.
Critical thinking also means prioritizing one's thoughts and time, not wasting them on that which is meaningless, and doing one's best to not allow others to pass off lies and fradulencies (real ones, not the 'fake news' propagandas) as something worthy of debate.
Society does, as a whole. And society owes it to itself to not let the nutcases get ahold of that lever, or be able to pretend that their belief in lies is merely another opinion.
This sig for rent.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Friday March 15 2019, @09:56PM (23 children)
Estimate it exactly as 2. And I can't help but notice that you aren't actually saying anything, much less anything relevant.
Prioritizing one's thoughts and time isn't censorship. Nor does it require censorship. It's a personal action. I see no one here claiming that you shouldn't be able to filter out on your own, stuff that you don't want to listen to.
Well, ignoring that detecting "lies and fradulencies" isn't an easy thing to do, we have the obvious question of how you propose to do that? It's one thing to point out the "lies and fradulencies" as a rebuttal argument - which doesn't impair anyone's freedom of speech, and a completely different matter to have Minitrue suppress speechcrime.
So how is that working for ya?
(Score: 2) by All Your Lawn Are Belong To Us on Friday March 15 2019, @10:42PM (22 children)
Exactly. You cannot supply what I have asked for (NOT an estimate) and I cannot satisfy you beyond what's already above. Impasse. So we can move on.
Nobody has said anything about the state being involved in this. Censorship does not obtain in the legal sense.
Aside from that, I can certainly advocate that others not listen to that stuff either. If enough of a majority agree that listening to such tripe is that, tripe, then we have achieved an end.
If you want to disagree with me you are free to. It's not like I can stop, or expect that society will truly enact a ban, on obvious bullshit. If we could then we'd either have a perfect world or a cinder.
Banishing something does not require legal sanction, although it can. Banishment requires getting rid of that which is not wanted. There are indeed times when lies and frauds are hard to detect, or times when if something is true, false, or an opinion is hard to determine. Now you answer mine: Do you personally feel that the Holocaust is something that did not happen? Were over one million Jews exterminated by the Third Reich a fact, or not? Is it acceptable for someone to stand up and say, "No, that didn't happen and it is all the lies of Zionists!" Is it hard to recognize that such arguments bear no weight?
Not too badly. Not too great, either, but what are we going to do? I'm not proposing going full Taliban.
I'm comfortable with there being a gray area here. No, really, I am. But to me, the things listed above are things which are not in the gray area at all. But I'm pretty sick and tired of seeing anti-vax arguments, moon landing conspiracies, flat earthers, and holocaust deniers presented as if they deserve time and consideration. Now, which of these are you willing to say truly deserve thought?
This sig for rent.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Saturday March 16 2019, @02:13PM (21 children)
That is, I can't supply the red herring you asked for. Maybe you should go to Red Norway for that instead of wasting my time?
Then who is going to provide the censorship when the private world refuses to? The state is the thugs of last resort.
So what? Nobody disagreed with that.
That depends on what you agree with. Your previous posts indicated you though censorship was a valid option for society once the ideas sucked enough.
Then it isn't truly banished.
How does one get rid of it. Is this a non-so-subtle hint that I've been slacking off? My turn to take all the bad ideas of the internets to the bin? I'll get to it tomorrow - kinda real busy right now with stuff. Yes, stuff.
Yes, actually. Don't listen, if you don't like listening to bullshit. Even lying is protected by the First Amendment. Just don't lie about someone who can sue you back for slander/libel.
(Score: 2) by All Your Lawn Are Belong To Us on Tuesday March 19 2019, @06:21PM (20 children)
Then you are free to stop replying to me at any time. Isn't that the position you're already advocating? But thanks for acknowledging you haven't actually given me the answer - one that you will not be able to. I was done discussing it and you brought it back up to me. Don't want that answer, stop asking that question.
So you now acknowledge that this is the strawman you have conceived? Find me anywhere above where I suggested the state should be responsible. I'll wait for you to not find it. You're the one who has conflated "ban" and "state censorship." Or are you suggesting that Facebook doesn't have the right to disallow whatever speech Facebook does not allow on its platform? That's where this story started.
So you are suggesting that I can advocate the position that other people should likewise shun such foolishments. And if a group shuns something, is it not banned from the group's consideration? Is that not an acceptable end or permissible?
No, censorship was your word, not mine. I was suggesting that society can collectively state such lies are not considered acceptable. (Or Facebook, come to that). A society (or a subgroup of it) can say, "Pay no attention to these falsehoods." Society can say, "those who state X are lying." Again, you're the one who's thinking that some kind of state action has been called for, or must be called for, or will be called for. All I'm saying is that society can collectively start saying that obvious lies are not welcome to be expressed. I'm rather confident in society's ability to collectively determine what things are genuinely irredeemable lies from political opinions.
I call your attention to Google's definition of the word (for convenience sake). Bolding mine.
Did you know that the etymology of the word ban comes from the making of a public pronouncement? Marriages used to be publicized by declaring on multiple subsequent occasions the names of the people to be wed - in church or publicly - to ensure there were no objections from the community to the union ("publishing the banns.") No state action required. When enough of society takes to publicly declaring a falsehood or lie should be disregarded, that is a ban. Did the woman who wanted romance out of her head ask the state for help? Did Chris need to get a seal of approval that his smile makes fear or suspicion go away? Again, no state action required or desired. And doubly so when one is speaking of a privately owned platform's right to allow or disallow whatever forms of speech exists on it. Why shouldn't Facebook be allowed to banish anti-vaccine ads from its platform? Or are you suggesting that Facebook needs to appeal to the state to take that action?
Yes. Your obligation to state whether or not the Holocaust actually occurred or not. You failed to answer that question. You ducked out of it. So I ask you again: Did the Holocaust occur or didn't it?
And yes, your obligation as a member of society that when somebody suggests that it didn't happen to tell that individual they are sucking wind and advocating such is a dirty lie. Instead you'd like to just let people treat it as another optional thing whether to believe in or not. (This goes for most of the other items on that list above). If all that is required for evil to flourish is for good men to do nothing, all that is required for lies to flourish is for responsible people to not denounce them as such.
How does one get rid of it? By every time you hear such foolishments by stating A) what the truth is, B) that you do not accept the lie, and C) that the person should stop lying now. Maybe if that's done consistently and often enough the lies stop circulating. Then maybe such occurrences will start shrinking. Much better than just letting lies sit out there as "just another opinion." Or by allowing a private platform like Facebook to banish ads it finds are not in their interest.
Again with thinking that government is the solution here. So you're willing to let holocaust deniers announce their lies and not stand up for what has actually occurred. How brave of you. And no, the First Amendment does not require Facebook to allow people to advertise whatever they want to.
This sig for rent.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Wednesday March 20 2019, @02:02PM (19 children)
Not when another group does the considering instead. There's more than one group in human society.
This is all just a rather stupid activity anyway. Part of the reason, I suspect for weird, shun-inducing beliefs like Flat Earth ideology is that it works precisely because it isolates the believer from the rest of society. Cults need to have their believers isolated from society.
So going through this effort to shun someone just makes the programming more effective.
And what's the endgame when enough of society doesn't go along with the shunning? That's where government gets involved. It happened in Europe, for example. They went straight for the big banhammer of law.
I see the leading questions continue. I'd take you more seriously, if your arguments weren't so fallacy ridden.
What happens when they're not lying? Lying is after all a deliberate telling of falsehoods. If they aren't deliberately telling falsehoods, or the falsehoods aren't actually false (like the 1+1 = 1.99999999999 thing occasionally is), then what is the point of the exercise? Well, there's still shunning of ideas you just don't like on typical fallacy grounds.
I find accusing someone of lying is a pointless activity. Either it's a troll who'll just double down without consequence (all that happens is you have even more lying to accuse them of), or they truly believe what they're shoveling and the accusation of lying is false.
(Score: 2) by All Your Lawn Are Belong To Us on Wednesday March 20 2019, @04:18PM (18 children)
Overall, you are quite unwilling to address the matter whether Facebook should have the right to do what they have done: Set their own policies to shun and deny a particular point of view which, by default, they must corporately disagree with (or at least are willing to produce an end effect that is equivalent.) Which is a prime example of nongovernmental banning. To my mind this would likewise grant them the right to forbid discussion of the topic. Banning it on Facebook, if they chose to. So I'll just assume you're OK with the concept of a group banning an idea within their own realm of control, and that you recognize it doesn't take state action to achieve that end.
I wasn't asking about another group, nice attempt to run down a false path. See paragraph 1 above. But I'll rephrase by one word, then: If a group shuns something, is it not banned from that group's consideration?
The goal here is not to assist the believer, who can only be assisted if he or she wants to be. They can continue to live in their isolation since society will have disregarded what they believe free of the falsehood's contamination. To the Facebook society, as an example, they are free to open their own platform where their view can be espoused to their heart's content. With blackjack. And hookers. [urbandictionary.com] (Actually, such a platform already exists [gab.ai]. But forget the blackjack and hookers.)
You can cite specific examples now. I await your Godwinism. Maybe nothing happens at all except you get a fractured society on the point in question. See paragraph 1 above.
Fortunately for myself, I don't need for you to take me seriously nor must I respect your opinion about my logic. And yes, you did duck out of it. So if you cannot or will not answer a simple yes or no question about a known fact like whether the holocaust existed then I'm not sure about your ability to be objective at all. You've already acknowledged you feel no obligation to protest a holocaust denier, so I'll just take that as sufficient that you'd be willing to be complicit in holocaust denial by silence.
A falsehood does not have to be deliberately intended. It just has to be provably false. I'll wait for you to look up the definition of falsehood. Googles is, "a state of being untrue: a lie, lying." If someone continues to assert a falsehood in the face of evidence to the contrary then it may be considered a lie even by your definition, no matter the subjective feeling of the person stating it.
That aside, if you do not stand up for that which is true then, as above, you are willing to let that which is untrue flourish.
And, since you continue to bring the issue up and won't let it drop, then you still have to provide me with precisely 1.99999999999 mathematicians. If there are objects which aren't divisible into anything less than integers then there are absolute circumstances in which answers less than integers are acceptable and rounding does not apply. 1+1 always equals 2 but an infinite series of nines is not always something which exists, only in some frames of reference. Then we can continue on to whether or not Pi equals exactly 3.
This sig for rent.
(Score: 2) by All Your Lawn Are Belong To Us on Wednesday March 20 2019, @04:24PM
Correction, there are absolute circumstances in which answers less than integers are not acceptable. Which should have been obvious but I apologize for the typo.
(And surely there are circumstances where rounding is allowable. But it is the knowledge that there are times when rounding is not acceptable which controls.)
This sig for rent.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Wednesday March 20 2019, @08:50PM (16 children)
My opinion is nothing. Presence of fallacies in your arguments is something you should be concerned about. And no, I'm not going to answer the question.
Is the Shunning going to commence then because I didn't sufficiently virtue signal?
(Score: 2) by All Your Lawn Are Belong To Us on Wednesday March 20 2019, @10:11PM (15 children)
Nice attempt to trigger. No, it just means your words mean nothing in this particular case because you have proven you are willing to allow hatred to flourish.
I am not aware that the society which is Soylent News has any group morals beyond freedom of speech. So why would I attempt to shun you in this forum? I can point out as I choose that your morals are lacking, just as you try to point out my logic is suffering. We'll see. I'm just glad that you won't be able to place vaccine hoaxes on Facebook.
This sig for rent.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Wednesday March 20 2019, @10:39PM (14 children)
You might not have noticed from the anal crevice you inhabit, but Holocaust denial is not flourishing.
You mean aside from the sloganeering like allowing hate to flourish? I can imagine that alone would more than suffice.
Anyone can say anybody's morals are lacking. It's just words.
You go on dreaming that impossible dream.
(Score: 2) by All Your Lawn Are Belong To Us on Thursday March 21 2019, @04:03PM (13 children)
Probably not. Were I good, I'd stop triggering you and being triggered and we'd probably reach agreement on something-or-other.
Really? [splcenter.org] Not from where I sit, insults aside. SPL might not know everything, but their graph seems to indicate a rise in groups promulgating it. And an attitude of, "hey, whatever you believe is OK!" doesn't do much towards stopping it, either. But what I'm stating also works towards moon landing hoaxers and all the rest, too. This is just the most obviously evil and pernicious one so it makes a convenient end bound.
No, my motive would probably be much closer to witnessing the use of loaded pejoratives like, "virtue-signalling," if I didn't recognize the irony of somebody using that term to signal their own virtues. Or suggesting that I inhabit an anal crevice above. And yes, not speaking up allows hate to flourish, whether you like that or not. And, like it or not, there is nothing wrong with a person signalling what their virtues are - though it seems like you do not. Though not speaking up doesn't seem to be a problem for either of us and there are times when I find your positions admirable even when I disagree with them.
Yes, except that you've given me some evidence for that now. But whatever.
I will, thanks. [archives.gov]
This sig for rent.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Thursday March 21 2019, @06:14PM (12 children)
So what? The Southern Poverty Law Center is a scam. And why is it relevant if there actually are more "groups"? A group can consistent of millions of people. Or it can consist of zero people. It also doesn't tell us what the purpose of the group is. It might be a hate group or it might just be libel. The number of groups doesn't tell us anything about the membership of those group and whether they're actually a problem or not. Sure, the SPLC counts real groups like the KKK. They'll also count nonexistent groups. For example [thefreelibrary.com]:
Moving on:
I used to feel the same way until I realized that the phrase, "virtue signaling" fills a good semantics niche, namely accurately describing behavior like you exhibit. It's just a form of status signaling that operates on generating the appearance of virtue. Here, your babble qualifies as virtue signaling, lazily appealing to morality and whatnot, demonstrating your mating fitness by beating up a straw man Holocaust denier, among other things. It's just the human version of peacock feathers.
Exact. Whatever. I find it remarkable just how infantile so much of this babble about morality is. I haven't given you any evidence contrary to assertion, but the talk continues. Banging one's shoe on the keyboard and demanding that I answer for nonsensical loaded questions and red herrings is not morality nor proof of some other side's lack of morality.
Linking to a Martin Luther King speech just to drop in a red herring? Have you no shame?
(Score: 2) by All Your Lawn Are Belong To Us on Thursday March 21 2019, @08:05PM (11 children)
What you wrote about SPLC has nothing to do whether or not holocaust denial exists or whether it is on the rise or not. I've provided an indicator that it is. You can refute it with facts, not by questioning the source.
No. What it does is try to establish superiority of the person using the term, that he or she is qualified to judge that such symbols are in name only. And, ironically, tries to establish a value superiority that the expression of value symbols is meaningless. Which it is not, but that is not relevant to the discussion here. And the term means less than nothing when the person accused has backed them up with actions in real life - something that you have no information to judge me on directly (and would not be able to do so if you knew me personally). And since you haven't demonstrated any willingness towards moral behavior or displaying what you consider morals to be it's kind of sad. Instead you are directly insultive and belittling. You have no demonstrated ability in this setting to determine whether you are competent to judge someone else's morals at all.
You set yourself up for that one, so wear the shoe that fits. I have nothing to be ashamed of working towards that dream. How about you?
This sig for rent.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Friday March 22 2019, @03:45AM (10 children)
What you wrote about the SPLC has nothing to do with that stuff as well. That's the problem. The SLPC doesn't give useful information about such things.
I think you probably ought to rewrite that. And of course, you are not competent to make statements such as the last sentence by the same logic you are employing. Self-contradiction.
(Score: 2) by All Your Lawn Are Belong To Us on Friday March 22 2019, @10:56AM (9 children)
I think we're probably reasonably close to bedrock. You're not providing alternative data suggesting holocaust denial is declining, only questioning my source showing there's an increase or the potential of it. I'll stick with it rather than find another, and you can provide a counter-citation or counter-evidence if you want to question my conclusion and not just suggest that that SPLC is a "sham" as you have stated. I will acknowledge holocaust denial is a fringe position in any event. It is a fringe position not because racists would not like to believe in it, rather it is fringe because society has placed it there. Society has effectively made anyone who tries to argue the fact of whether it happened a marginalized position as it should be. My point. For any subunit of society where conversation takes place, the owner of that forum is free to completely eliminate that or any other topic of discussion. Again my point, and you have not argued that at all. Overall, it is fine and acceptable for any given society to establish its value parameters such that people who embrace blatant lies may be driven away from espousing those positions within the group, marginalizing the position, without state involvement and without physical punishment to the users thereof. Time will tell whether the anti-vaccine movement should be relegated to such status. It appears that enough people believe in anti-vaccine lies at the moment to not be there, although this move by Facebook is a positive development.
I won't rewrite what I wrote about those who use a term like "virtue signalling." It is not self-contradiction: I have laid out what my moral position is: Holocaust denial is wrong and those who espouse it should be shunned by modern society such that the topic is effectively banned from civil conversation. I expanded to that as an example of extreme topics which do not require any debate because they are falsehood to such extreme level that anyone who uses the term can be credibly accused of lying about what the facts are. You failed to indicate whether you recognize that my prime example fulfills that criteria. You have consistently failed to do lay out any kind of value position beyond a vague yet unstated notion that the freedom of a person to express whatever they will should be a sacrosanct thing and society should embrace all those positions. You have laid no foundation for why this value is preferable, but if that indeed represents your position I wish you well.
I have stated my values and have provided indicators that I actually live by them, although I'll be the first to admit that I'm not perfect at that yet. I am also professionally qualified to discuss and determine ethics, morals, virtues, and values, although I'm not going to provide you with the proof of that as I have no need to do so in this setting. I've done my best to not keep this personal although I slipped a bit, where I have already pointed out to you multiple occasions where you have stooped to personal insult to try and score debate points. You have not responded to those at all, so I assume you are comfortable with trying to place your moral judgment of others this way although again you have shown no values or virtues here which can justify them.
And for dessert I will assert that attempting to label someone as "SJW", another favorite term around here, is exactly the same thing: an insidious attempt to achieve virtue superiority by suggesting that the one the term is being used against is not personally committed to the principles being espoused. But that's a topic for another thread.
This sig for rent.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Friday March 22 2019, @12:42PM (8 children)
What is remarkable is that first, the SPLC data is for hate groups, not for Holocaust deniers, which presumably would be a subset niche. And second, the number of bogus groups mentioned in my quote is large enough that the number of hate groups could actually be declining! It's certainly the case that the SPLC has changed its methodology of determining what is a hate group. That alone can create the illusion of trends merely by triggering on more possible groups than the earlier methodology.
This is alternative data. It indicates, among other things, that the SPLC data doesn't actually show hate groups are on the rise.
No, it's a fringe position because there's a vast amount of evidence that the Holocaust occurred (eyewitnesses, massive Nazi documentation, etc).
This is the thing that puzzles me the whole time. Critical thinking is its own reward. Yet you would rather depend on a shifty and notoriously unreliable mechanism of societal shunning instead. Indeed, consider your hypothesis derived from the SPLC data. Suppose we really are seeing a huge exponential growth in hate groups? There's two obvious issues. First, societal shunning isn't stopping it.
Second, what happens if that exponential growth continues to the point that hate is the new majority? Well, the double edged sword of societal shunning cuts you instead. Denial of Holocaust denial is the new obvious lie.
No, it's not fine. Because society doesn't know what a lie is. Mobs are dumb, remember?
This very thread demonstrates a couple of flaws of the approach. Why haven't you been slightly marginalized for your use of leading questions?
Ad hominems?
And of course, the first quote at the top of my post is an example of confirmation bias. Earlier, I was willing to grant that you were trying out some sort of devil's advocate argument. But here, I repeatedly see indications that you aren't reasoning well, disregarding information and logic that could help you come to better conclusions. You can continue to ignore my "opinions". Or you can live a better life.
My view on the whole thing is that Holocaust denial and such is way overblown, as is the societal reaction to it. There is so much of society that just doesn't matter to what one's political beliefs are. I don't care what the paramedic believes on political or historical matters when they've giving me life-saving treatment. Societal shunning could harm us in ways we don't see by excluding people from critical jobs and tasks that they can do well despite their belief disability.
(Score: 2) by All Your Lawn Are Belong To Us on Friday March 22 2019, @04:44PM (7 children)
You might have missed where "holocaust denial" is a category that can be selected on that map, not sure. And yes, it is certainly possible that the data is faulty or doesn't show the conclusion that I intend. It's only indicative of something I've been observing in general, anyway. But what you're forwarding is criticism of the data I presented, not establishing your own sources refuting what I have claimed. Your right, since I'm the one making the claim. But you haven't refuted what I've said by introducing your own facts as much as criticizing the source of mine, in a method that dismisses the organization outright. But I've already said more than enough.
The evidence for it, though, may be dismissed with the flick of the wrist. It's rather concerning since the oldest Jewish survivors of the camps are now 75 or older. All those overwhileming proofs are dismissable by individuals. Society does keep such belief on the margins where discussion of the topic seriously (as in lack of existence of it) does not occur.
I didn't say I'm not willing to allow critical thinking, merely that we have many better things to use it on in life than wasting it on positions which do not require it. And that a given body of people might find methods to keep such beliefs there.
Extermination of such beliefs isn't the end goal, either, for you are right that should a different group take power one might find oneself on that same fringe.
Then next time the denial of the denial of the denial shall come to pass. Eventually we will find that it's denial all the way down. Or one could take the view that the truth has a surprising way of becoming known over time, and the examples that DannyB chose above (mostly) involve falsehoods of magnitudes which society has already judged as fringe-worthy.
Society =/= mob, although I'll acknowledge that it does reach a mediocrity and is not welcoming of ideas which challenge the status quo. Another error here is we haven't defined "society" because it too is gelatinously definable. But yes you have a point.
I don't know, why haven't I been marginalized for slighting you, and why you haven't for slighting me? A working hypothesis might be that we're the only ones who care about this at this point. A secondary is that the rules of Soylent might be different from those that could be applied to "the mob" as you put it. (What is "mod as troll/disagree/offtopic/spamming/more?" but allowing the community to set those parameters, while simultaneously allowing AC posting? I'd say that this is a very effective way for the Soylent society to banish beliefs to the fringes of -1 land. Without eliminating them in virtually all cases.)
A third might be because I can and did readily recognize the point made way back in the anon poster (was that you?) about an infinite series of .9's being the equivalent of 1 has mathematical validity. Yet it doesn't change the truth that objects which are only available as integers makes 1+1=2 still valid in the real world, as well as such sophistries missing the real point I was making. (Why anyone hasn't questioned that 1.5 + .5 also equals 2 is what's beyond me although that's hard for someone who believes only in Integers to understand). But I have digressed a bit. If you don't want to be placed into those categories, this is fine. "I'm not a holocaust denier nor someone who places antivax ads on Facebook, and you've missed the point Lawn," and you have an apology. Actually you have an apology without that because you've also proven yourself too intelligent on too many occasions to buy those things as I portrayed them. But there does come times and places (not in a long running thread on an internet forum that nobody is paying attention to) when one must declare what one's beliefs are and draw lines in the sand as to what is acceptable in life.
Well spoken, though I have to object to just a couple of things. First, I'll heartily acknowledge that logic and reason are very useful tools. But I also believe, apologies to Nimoy at the same time they're the beginning or wisdom, not the end. Society does not always have to be logical or reasonable to reach beneficial ends.
The last element is I think you're trying to peg me as a paramedic? (I'm flattered that you'd believe such if so, although that isn't my profession at this time nor the source of my professional competency in morals and ethics.) Or you are? (Which would be cool.) I'd agree that it doesn't matter to a lifesaver what beliefs a person has on either end of such an experience. Are we talking shunning of an individual, or shunning of an idea? Above you asked me if I had no shame. Was that not an attempt to question my morals -to indicate that I'm going beyond the bounds of civil conversation? I'm not trying to call you out here - only to recognize that individuals and communities do have limits. Those limits do not have to be restricted by logic in order to be acceptable. So, can repugnant ideas be repudiated and the beliefs in them shunned while not damaging the integrity of the person so expressing such nastiness..... Give me a century or two unless you have an idea about that.
This sig for rent.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Saturday March 23 2019, @01:51AM (6 children)
Not feeling the need to care. It's still the SPLC with the imaginary groups.
And? These aren't the people I want policing my meme space for obvious lies.
You should have started with that rather than go with some broken society-level mechanism. As I noted, critical thinking works better than hoping people stay rational enough that your opinions don't become thoughtcrimes.
Because it wouldn't be relevant to any point anyone was making. That's why.
Hope you actually thought about it when you draw that line.
I guess my point was that shunning ideas routinely slides into shunning the people holding those ideas for a variety of unrelated human activities. For example, SN covered several cases where this happened. Two are particularly ridiculous. Brendan Eich was fired [soylentnews.org] from Mozilla within a couple of weeks of being made CEO because he had donated to a political campaign against same sex marriage - despite this firing being illegal discrimination in the state of California where Mozilla is incorporated.
Second, Larry "Crell" Garfield was expelled [soylentnews.org] from the "Drupal Community" for practicing Gorean and BDSM beliefs (the former comes from a fantasy series of pulp fiction books). No actual reason for concern was ever given. It was a bunch of babble about his off duty behaviors, none which were shown to be relevant to his work or interactions with other developers.
The point here is that we see numerous times what happens when people can shun for your supposedly good reasons. They shun for all sorts of spurious reasons instead and this boils over on a regular basis to areas where the shunning has no business being.
(Score: 2) by All Your Lawn Are Belong To Us on Saturday March 23 2019, @03:52AM (5 children)
And I apparently agree with you if you understood me. I do not want holocaust deniers (who blithely suggest that those Jews are just liars) to have an equal voice on saying what truth is. "It" in my sentence was the existence of the holocaust and it was deniers I was speaking of who will overturn all the evidence you want to present to them with a flick of the wrist. If that makes no difference to you, very well. But if you do truly believe the mob cannot think, then why do you believe that the mob will respect critical thinking in acknowledging a preponderance of evidence when it comes time to decide whether we landed on the moon (to change my metaphor, but it applies either to either circumstance)?
For the following items: holocaust denial, flat earth, moon landing hoax? Not likely. There are certainly others one can add that do not take much thought, but we handle most of those as criminal matters (and ought to, for whatever values you would define 'crime' to truly be) and I've already hyperbolized enough. And surely there are much much tougher ones where the lines aren't clear at all.
I'm not really sure the examples you cited are ringing endorsements for your position. Eich's case becomes a lot more tenuous if you are a gay Mozilla employee. And his departure was certainly not over that alone. Garfield's is a whole lot murkier, yes. He wasn't a CxO. But on the other hand, he wasn't shunned by a society as a whole. He was fired by an individual for reasons that Buytaert says are not public, despite Garfield's self-outing. If Garfield is to be believed, he is a victim of doxxing, and if Buytaert is to be believed there's more under the surface than what has been revealed to date.
I'd like to get past that, though, because I do believe I understand your point or at least part of it. And because I sought your opinion out, I want to affirm that allowing a society to set anything is indeed a risky thing to do. Nevertheless communities and societies do indeed set expectations. Are they good? What is a good reason might be up for debate, but neither of your examples match the "good" criteria I was proposing at all as far as I can see. ("My" good reasons as you put it.) At least, I see no case where either "shunned" individual you listed was purporting beliefs that are objectively demonstrable as false, unless you can clarify where they were or where such beliefs are incorrectly false.) It's a core ethical question: What is a "good" and how does one prioritize "good" over "less good." Maybe the better question is what "good" do you think I'm aiming for? And I'll think about that too as I do have it but can't phrase it succinctly yet.
This sig for rent.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Saturday March 23 2019, @04:43AM (4 children)
Instead, you're proposing a mechanism by which they can have a more than equal voice. They just need enough to dominate. I don't think Holocaust deniers will. But there's plenty of bad ideas where those came from.
(Score: 2) by All Your Lawn Are Belong To Us on Saturday March 23 2019, @05:42AM (3 children)
I'm proposing a mechanism by which if they can dominate they may have earned the right to control, yes. Because that seems like reality to me. Which is why I'm damned sure that in this instance they should never earn that ability, unlikely as that may be. And surely there are plenty of bad ideas, and the vast majority of them are not clear cut - I think that we agree on. For me, that's why I'm not saying throw critical thinking or logic out the window (far from it) and trust all to the might of the majority every time. It reminds me just a tad of the Heinlein bit about democracy and autocracy. Neither make a lot of sense on their own. But one thing that does seem clear is that societies do exist and it will exert themselves. However society exerts itself there are groups which should not or must not gain control. And it would surprise me if most of us don't have some list of who those groups are. I don't think I believe any single method will or should direct that process. Not logic. Not emotion. Not unlimited freedom nor absolute autocracy. Not that either you or I can control that.
This sig for rent.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Saturday March 23 2019, @01:25PM (2 children)
Or even if they haven't earned the right, but just took over the mechanism.
Perception != reality.
If such a tendency existed in the first place, we wouldn't have had things like the Nazi takeover of Germany.
(Score: 2) by All Your Lawn Are Belong To Us on Monday March 25 2019, @03:01PM
Which might be prima facie evidence that they have earned the right, in the sense of survival of the fittest - if they gain a majority they have the control.
Perception ∧ reality for most values of both.
Or the Nazi takeover of Germany and the memory of the holocaust is what feeds the desire to ensure that they cannot earn the ability again. And what makes such mechanisms sadly necessary, dangerous as they are.
This sig for rent.
(Score: 2) by All Your Lawn Are Belong To Us on Monday March 25 2019, @03:16PM
On the other other hand, I may be wrong. [soylentnews.org]
This sig for rent.