Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

Politics
posted by chromas on Saturday April 14 2018, @05:56PM   Printer-friendly
from the Smells-like-censorship-or-teen-spirit dept.

On the Daily Dot:

The Facebook pages of Richard Spencer, the alt-right leader who was famously punched in the face last year, have been suspended.

The pages for the National Policy Institute, a lobbying group of sorts for white nationalists, and Spencer's online magazine "altright.com," vanished on Friday after Vice sent the social network an inquiry about hate groups. They had a combined following of almost 15,000 followers.

The action was taken just days after Mark Zuckerberg emphasized during his testimony before Congress that Facebook does not allow hate speech. But it wasn't until Vice flagged the accounts that Facebook suspended them. The social network said in a statement that it identifies violating pages using human monitors, algorithms, and partnerships with organizations.

Also at Engadget and Vice.


Original Submission

 
This discussion has been archived.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: 5, Informative) by stormwyrm on Saturday April 14 2018, @11:57PM (21 children)

    by stormwyrm (717) on Saturday April 14 2018, @11:57PM (#667098) Journal

    Less well known is the paradox of tolerance: Unlimited tolerance must lead to the disappearance of tolerance. If we extend unlimited tolerance even to those who are intolerant, if we are not prepared to defend a tolerant society against the onslaught of the intolerant, then the tolerant will be destroyed, and tolerance with them.—In this formulation, I do not imply, for instance, that we should always suppress the utterance of intolerant philosophies; as long as we can counter them by rational argument and keep them in check by public opinion, suppression would certainly be most unwise. But we should claim the right to suppress them if necessary even by force; for it may easily turn out that they are not prepared to meet us on the level of rational argument, but begin by denouncing all argument; they may forbid their followers to listen to rational argument, because it is deceptive, and teach them to answer arguments by the use of their fists or pistols. We should therefore claim, in the name of tolerance, the right not to tolerate the intolerant. We should claim that any movement preaching intolerance places itself outside the law, and we should consider incitement to intolerance and persecution as criminal, in the same way as we should consider incitement to murder, or to kidnapping, or to the revival of the slave trade, as criminal.

    — Karl Popper, The Open Society and Its Enemies [archive.org], p. 265 (all emphasis in original). I don't know if what is happening here is suppression of intolerance of the sort Popper describes, but it is something to think about. If you extend unlimited tolerance to the intolerant, the intolerant will use your tolerance to destroy the tolerant and tolerance itself.

    --
    Numquam ponenda est pluralitas sine necessitate.
    Starting Score:    1  point
    Moderation   +3  
       Insightful=1, Informative=2, Total=3
    Extra 'Informative' Modifier   0  
    Karma-Bonus Modifier   +1  

    Total Score:   5  
  • (Score: 3, Interesting) by AthanasiusKircher on Sunday April 15 2018, @12:35AM (5 children)

    by AthanasiusKircher (5291) on Sunday April 15 2018, @12:35AM (#667100) Journal

    This is a good point. However, condemnation of "intolerant" people can sometimes be made out of ignorance. Sometimes supposedly "intolerant" perspectives are actually resulting from different underlying assumptions or worldviews, rather than something objectively "less tolerant."

      Also, my larger perspective would be to say that simply condemning the intolerant and not "tolerating" then is often counterproductive. Those condemned will often just lash out or ignore you or view your condemnation as arrogance. If you really want to stamp out intolerance, it must be addressed through understanding the underlying perspectives and a sympathetic ear, not just dismissive. One need not tolerate intolerance, but one should approach it with understand.

    • (Score: 3, Insightful) by Azuma Hazuki on Sunday April 15 2018, @02:11AM (4 children)

      by Azuma Hazuki (5086) on Sunday April 15 2018, @02:11AM (#667124) Journal

      So drag the intolerant out into the sunlight and show, by being better-informed, wittier, and a better person, WHY they are wrong. Sunlight is the best disinfectant. This idea of just shutting them down completely creeps me the hell out. If they want to do something like that they need to show that this guy and others are actually breaking laws. Until then, the proper response is a combination of ignoring them and ridiculing them six ways from Sunday as they richly deserve.

      If nothing else, this feeds right into their stupid fucking persecution complex. These people *want* to martyrs for the cause. What they don't want is being forced to live while their cause collapses around them in a landslide of scorn and ridicule. Don't censor the alt-right: send them up as the stupid, foolish, dangerous clowns they are.

      --
      I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
      • (Score: 4, Funny) by jmorris on Sunday April 15 2018, @07:56AM (3 children)

        by jmorris (4844) on Sunday April 15 2018, @07:56AM (#667200)

        What if they don't want to debate you? The left is increasingly of the belief that the best debating tactic is to simply punch their opponents until they shut up or die. Meanwhile Islam teaches that the best rebuttal is cutting off their opponent's head.

        Those examples point the way to a useful definition of the bounds of tolerance. Tolerance for all those willing to openly engage in a debate but not just censorship for those unwilling, expulsion from our lands if possible and death if it isn't. Total exclusion from anyone entering our civilization who is known to be antithetical to its continued existence and absolutely zero apology or guilt tripping over it. Rule one must be survival in any rational moral code.

        • (Score: 3, Touché) by Azuma Hazuki on Sunday April 15 2018, @02:38PM (1 child)

          by Azuma Hazuki (5086) on Sunday April 15 2018, @02:38PM (#667276) Journal

          Oh, I agree there with that last sentence, and with it, you have simply restated the Paradox :) Thing is, though, people like you and with your beliefs *are* dangerous to society's continued survival.

          --
          I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
          • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday April 15 2018, @06:13PM

            by Anonymous Coward on Sunday April 15 2018, @06:13PM (#667343)

            Bingo. Jmorris, the goose stepping martyr. Oh wait, he's not martyr, he's just another loser that hopes for a martyr to suffer instead.

        • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday April 21 2018, @04:42AM

          by Anonymous Coward on Saturday April 21 2018, @04:42AM (#669957)

          What if they don't want to debate you? The left is increasingly of the belief that the best debating tactic is to simply punch their opponents until they shut up or die. Meanwhile Islam teaches that the best rebuttal is cutting off their opponent's head.

          And what do your compatriots do? Oh, they're such bastions of tolerance by comparison! Absolute, sturdy bastions of tolerance! So tolerant that they will crush the people [wikipedia.org] who disagree with them!

  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday April 15 2018, @04:26AM (1 child)

    by Anonymous Coward on Sunday April 15 2018, @04:26AM (#667158)

    The paradox of tolerance is not a reasonable explanation for leftist intolerance. Proof: an absurdly intolerant religion has, strangely, been embraced by leftists. The left claims to support both LGBT and a religion which has, as an undeniable element of faith, the requirement to chuck LGBT (at least receptive males) from rooftops. The left claims to support both women and a religion that gives women less freedom.

    So that explanation just doesn't work.

    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday April 15 2018, @06:28AM

      by Anonymous Coward on Sunday April 15 2018, @06:28AM (#667173)

      Truly, this is one of the stupidest comments I have ever read on SoylentNews, jmorris level of stupidity. Do you actually think that tolerance of Islam is embrasure? Tribal, black or white, "with us or with the t'rrists" George W Bush level stupidity. Why don't you post something else about supporting equal rights, you reprobate repugnant deplorable AC, so we can all have a good laugh at your idiocy again! Please!

  • (Score: 1) by khallow on Sunday April 15 2018, @06:15AM (12 children)

    by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Sunday April 15 2018, @06:15AM (#667171) Journal

    Unlimited tolerance must lead to the disappearance of tolerance.

    That's an opinion which I don't see supported in practice. Rather I see intolerant people gleefully on exhibition whenever they find an socially approved target towards which they can be intolerant without repercussions.

    and teach them to answer arguments by the use of their fists or pistols.

    Oh look, someone doing something illegal. It's not about intolerance at this point, it's about establishing and enforcing reasonable laws.

    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday April 15 2018, @06:33AM (11 children)

      by Anonymous Coward on Sunday April 15 2018, @06:33AM (#667176)

      Rather I see intolerant people gleefully on exhibition whenever they find an socially approved target towards which they can be intolerant without repercussions.

      Poor, poor khallow! Did the SJWs waylay you during recess, and steal your taxes again? I, for one, feel for you. I just hope that others, too, will see the violence inherent in the system of violent imposition of law and order, a violence that primarily oppresses single white males who work in tech industries!! Oh, the Huge Manatees! Or huge men in tees? I am not intolerant enough to worry about getting it right.

      • (Score: 2, Touché) by khallow on Sunday April 15 2018, @06:43AM (10 children)

        by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Sunday April 15 2018, @06:43AM (#667181) Journal
        One merely needs to look at your post to see the problem in practice. We're not even remotely Popperian at this point. There is no "intolerance" on my part to which one can be intolerant in turn. Yet you're still a dick.
        • (Score: 2) by Azuma Hazuki on Sunday April 15 2018, @02:40PM (9 children)

          by Azuma Hazuki (5086) on Sunday April 15 2018, @02:40PM (#667277) Journal

          Oh come on, he's not being "intolerant," he's giving your passive-aggressive, self-serving horseshit the mockery it deserves. Ridicule is not oppression, you fragile yellow snowflake.

          --
          I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
          • (Score: 0, Flamebait) by khallow on Sunday April 15 2018, @11:42PM (8 children)

            by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Sunday April 15 2018, @11:42PM (#667411) Journal

            he's giving your passive-aggressive, self-serving horseshit the mockery it deserves

            In other words, intolerance.

            Ridicule is not oppression

            Except when it is, of course. Harassment and punishment via ridicule [wikipedia.org] is not a new thing. Ridicule without context as was exhibited in this thread is such a pointless exercise. What do we gain by ridiculing people, if it is not accompanied by or spurring thoughtful debate? Answer: suppressing speech with which the poster disagrees. The problem is that disagreement is not a sign of correctness or rationality. It merely means you disagree. The wisest and dumbest can both disagree with equal facility. Even worse, as in this case, we don't know why or on what the poster disagrees. You might disagree, but that signals to me that I shouldn't care what the poster happens to believe.

            The problem with not tolerating the intolerant, is first, that you don't actually change the intolerant beliefs. You might drive it underground which does have some propaganda value. But without providing a genuine rebuttal, it's going to survive and rear up at some later time. Second, while there is this myth that such beliefs can never be changed, one sees many such changes over time. Beliefs can be discredited, but you have to honestly engage them in order to discredit them (ridiculing people, especially when such ridicule is more likely to fall on the sensible and sane than those who are not, is not honest engagement). Third, it routinely pushes important problems into becoming taboo subjects. Anyone willing to address those taboo subjects then has a powerful rhetorical advantage over those ignoring elephants in rooms.

            For example, the alt-right has gained a great deal of credibility because it is willing to publicly address excesses of "social justice", the problems that come from high levels of immigration, flaws of democracy, skepticism of climate change claims, etc. Some of their answers are batshit crazy, but at least they're willing to talk.

            For a more specific example, Trump won the US presidency because he was willing to speak out and address many voters' fears about immigration. His idea of "building a wall" is loony, particularly compared to some of the more successful policies of his predecessor (ironically, one of the few things Obama has done right is figure out how to reduce illegal immigration - eg, shifting deportations [snopes.com] to "formal deportations" which document the illegal entry and allow for temporary and permanent immigration bans for repeated violations of US law), but no one else would even think about it.

            That's one of the ways you can get bad policy. If no one is thinking about solving a big problem except for the crazies, then you're not going to get sane solutions.

            Fourth, intolerance of intolerance is hypocrisy. Hypocrisy is not the worst thing out there, but you probably should reduce your intake of it.

            Finally, look at what I quoted.

            Unlimited tolerance must lead to the disappearance of tolerance.

            So what was Popper's idea of "unlimited tolerance"?

            and teach them to answer arguments by the use of their fists or pistols.

            We wouldn't "tolerate" muggers assaulting people with fists or pistols. So why would we tolerate those muggers because they happen to be alt-right or some other ideology? It's nonsense. That's not tolerance. That's failure to enforce the law.

            The answer to the so-called Paradox of Tolerance is tolerate people and their beliefs and speech, but consistently don't tolerate criminal behavior. It's very simple.

            • (Score: 1, Troll) by aristarchus on Monday April 16 2018, @02:42AM (7 children)

              by aristarchus (2645) on Monday April 16 2018, @02:42AM (#667470) Journal

              What do we gain by ridiculing people, if it is not accompanied by or spurring thoughtful debate? Answer: suppressing speech with which the poster disagrees. The problem is that disagreement is not a sign of correctness or rationality. It merely means you disagree. The wisest and dumbest can both disagree with equal facility. Even worse, as in this case, we don't know why or on what the poster disagrees. You might disagree, but that signals to me that I shouldn't care what the poster happens to believe.

              My dear and squishy khallow, many, many times right here on SN soylentils have given you thoughtful debate. It has spilled off your brain like dusk off a waterback. It is not that we disagree, it is that you are wrong! We have been trying to educate you, point out your errant initial assumptions and crazed conjectures, but this has not worked. Now we are left with nothing but trying to shame you, not into suppression (hell, it usually has the opposite effect, if jmorris is any indication), but into a realization of your wrongitude. We know you don't care, you are not interested in thoughtful debate, and you argue in bad faith. So really, there is nothing to be done with you, until you change your ways, but to mock you mercilessly. Mockery will continue until morals improve!

              So, please respond with some more of your highest grade whining, so we can mock you a second tyime!!

              • (Score: 0, Troll) by khallow on Monday April 16 2018, @04:14AM (6 children)

                by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Monday April 16 2018, @04:14AM (#667503) Journal

                My dear and squishy khallow, many, many times right here on SN soylentils have given you thoughtful debate.

                Feel free to try to include yourself among that number at some point. Seriously, it does seem that there's a real mind somewhere behind that mask, but we rarely get to see it.

                As to the rest of your post, you did get a rise out of me, but it's just not worth it to express it in words. As I said before, I respond to thoughtful debate. But when it's not, well, you might get a good response out of me or you might not. Seems to me that one should get something more out of an aristarchus debate than just pushing the same worn-out buttons [soylentnews.org] that have been pushed for years.

                • (Score: 1, Troll) by aristarchus on Monday April 16 2018, @09:33AM (5 children)

                  by aristarchus (2645) on Monday April 16 2018, @09:33AM (#667557) Journal

                  Yes, of course, thought so. People advocating white supremacy are just plain stupid, because anyone can see that white people are not all that smart. And, even more damning, those white people who try to advocate white supremacy are among the stupidest members of the human species. So we are going to censor you, if you want to go down that path, khallow, and to your credit I have not seen you explicitly do so, yet. But if you do, we will not have a thoughtful debate about your theory of racial superiority, we will instead post news stories about your affair with your step-mother-in-law/landlady in the trailer park, mutandis mutandum. And you will be very, very ashamed. Until that, keep pushing the whole "private property incentivication" and "prosperity gospel" snake-oil. And, oh, remember to deny climate change again. You need to meet your quota for the month!!

                  • (Score: 1) by khallow on Monday April 16 2018, @01:28PM (3 children)

                    by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Monday April 16 2018, @01:28PM (#667614) Journal

                    People advocating white supremacy are just plain stupid, because anyone can see that white people are not all that smart.

                    I'm not doing that. You're not doing that. So completely irrelevant. Why don't you go bug Ethanol-Fueled (whose views still aren't white supremacy, but at least much closer to that than mine)? His permaban doesn't seem to be working.

                    Until that, keep pushing the whole "private property incentivication" and "prosperity gospel" snake-oil.

                    What I've written on that subject (the latter, the increasing prosperity of humanity everywhere) has been backed by actual evidence (for example, here [soylentnews.org]). Two thirds of humanity as a whole has seen substantial increases in wages over a recent 20 year period. Something big is being done right.

                    As to "private property incentivization"? It's its own incentive. There's no need for additional incentivization and I have never proposed such.

                    and to your credit I have not seen you explicitly do so, yet

                    Exactly. Why again are you being a jerk to me for things I haven't done "yet" (nor ever will)? Where were you when we had people ranting [soylentnews.org] about genocide was justified because the target did it first via mere immigration.

                    • (Score: 2, Insightful) by aristarchus on Monday April 16 2018, @06:40PM (2 children)

                      by aristarchus (2645) on Monday April 16 2018, @06:40PM (#667753) Journal

                      Two thirds of humanity as a whole has seen substantial increases in wages over a recent 20 year period. Something big is being done right.

                      Done "right", alright! Like 1%, Old Skool Big Business Republican Right! Oh, my dear and furry khallow, has it ever entered your head to assess metrics that seem to support your ideological position, so that you might see that an increase in wages can actually be a decrease in relative income, and a lowering of standards of living?

                      Please, tell us more! I just love Vienna Sausage Economics!

                      • (Score: 1) by khallow on Monday April 16 2018, @11:35PM

                        by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Monday April 16 2018, @11:35PM (#667850) Journal

                        so that you might see that an increase in wages can actually be a decrease in relative income, and a lowering of standards of living?

                        The links address that. For example, from the link [voxeu.org] showing a huge improvement in the well-being of all humanity. First, they define "real income":

                        Each country’s distribution is divided into ten deciles (each decile consists of 10% of the national population) according to their per capita disposable income (or consumption). In order to make incomes comparable across countries and time, they are corrected both for domestic inflation and differences in price levels between countries.

                        Then view figures 1 and 2.

                        When we line up all individuals in the world, from the poorest to the richest (going from left to right on the horizontal axis in Figure 1), and display on the vertical axis the percentage increase in the real income of the equivalent group over the period 1988–2008, we generate a global growth incidence curve – the first of its kind ever, because such data at the global level were not available before. The curve has an unusual supine S shape, indicating that the largest gains were realised by the groups around the global median (50th percentile) and among the global top 1%. But after the global median, the gains rapidly decrease, becoming almost negligible around the 85th–90th global percentiles and then shooting up for the global top 1%. As a result, growth in the income of the top ventile (top 5%) accounted for 44% of the increase in global income between 1988 and 2008.

                        So collectively - after correcting for inflation and differences in price levels, the world got a lot wealthier over the period 1988-2008 with around two thirds of the entire human population seeing large improvements over that time period. I'm oversimplifying the interpretation a bit, but it's showing the best improvement ever in humanity to date rather than some spurious artifact. Who received what depends on the country. China did a lot better than India, for example. And some did worse such as the lower classes of Japan.

                        At this point, it's looking pretty good with several decades track record, and looking to get better. Sure, we could embrace radical doubt [soylentnews.org] and assert without evidence that the presence of some confounding factor, like an all-powerful evil deity, is throwing off our economic numbers. But what would be the point?

                      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday April 17 2018, @04:05PM

                        by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday April 17 2018, @04:05PM (#668154)

                        If you were to buy some stocks . . .

                        Oh never mind. You would choose stocks that would leave you destitute. Don't bother.

                  • (Score: 1, Offtopic) by Runaway1956 on Monday April 16 2018, @09:45PM

                    by Runaway1956 (2926) Subscriber Badge on Monday April 16 2018, @09:45PM (#667815) Journal

                    people who try to advocate white supremacy are among the stupidest members of the human species

                    For certain values of "stupid", that may be true. On the other hand, a white supremacy regime in Europe did a damned good job of fucking up half the world when it threw a temper tantrum. If those people were so stupid, why did it take all of the rest of the world's power to stop them, and a couple of allies? It would seem that those Nazis were pretty damned intelligent, to have done so well, up until they fucked up with Barbarosa. You may or may not argue that Hitler was insane - but not even insanity negates a high intelligence. The bastard was crazy, AND smart, not to mention cunning and charismatic. That was a very, very VERY dangerous combination. Had Hitler not began losing touch with reality, he may very well have overrun Europe and it's allies.

                    It really isn't necessary to display your ignorance here. Politics, prejudice, racism, religion, and similar traits are no more an indicator of intelligence than height, or hair color, or the language you speak.