And he had caused the cursing to come upon them, yea, even a sore cursing, because of their iniquity. For behold, they had hardened their hearts against him, that they had become like unto a flint; wherefore, as they were white, and exceedingly fair and delightsome, that they might not be enticing unto my people the Lord God did cause a skin of blackness to come upon them.
Originally Posted by BananaCucho
Right vs Left is outdated, so to speak, and is obviously wrong when taken as the "whole picture". They are, at best, part of a bigger system; the way extreme right and extreme left join together in the end shows that it's not "versus" nor is it an axis. The ideology compass that includes authoritarianism and political liberalism as a vertical axis already improves the idea. Sadly, the public is generally unaware of such a distinction, and politics shown on the media are cultivating the false dichotomy and cynicism that destroys the willpower of citizens, making them unwilling to fulfill their democratic role, and eventually just not care about things such as actual "freedom of the mind", to use your wording.
What is the "propagation" you are talking about, and why is it so important? I don't understand that part of your post, sorry.
I've only just now read the thread. I'll puke a few thoughts I've had about this topic. Several distinctions can be made about how discourse can be regulated or controlled. For the sake of conversation, I'll contrive some terms for these distinctions:
-There is hard/reactionary control of discourse: This is when certain points or ideas are suppressed by some kind of punishment, either by a population or a state. For example, a state imprisoning you for espousing an opinion. A group of people getting you fired from your job via PR backlash.
-There is soft/functional control of discourse: This is when certain points or ideas are suppressed in a more functional sense - nothing is done to your person, but you are excluded from expressing the ideas in key spaces or reaching key audiences. For example, you prevented from going on a news channel and listing your top ten favourite Nazi officials, or getting kicked off of social media.
Hard control gets far more attention, because it can even (and occasionally does) apply to individuals making casual conversation. Imagine saying the wrong thing with the wrong eavesdropper and getting your job stripped from you by a twitter mob within 24 hours. The thought evokes a new kind of a social anxiety which has captured the public's imagination in recent years with "cancel culture" and the like. It's a terrifying case study in humanity's natural mob mentality that this happens.
However, in western countries, in terms of wider societal effect, soft control of discourse is much more relevant to the "freedom of mind" Helz describes. Twitter mobs ultimately only affect a handful of individuals, and attempts in developed countries by the state to imprison or fine people for speech have been unilaterally goofy in recent decades and only given sympathy to the victims of such actions. Far greater control has been exerted in developed countries through functional control - through cable news and major websites.
Within functional suppression, I will also make another distinction:
-Points can be suppressed through direct omission. This is, for example, when the principal decides they don't want a top ten Nazi Officials event at their university, so the principal cancels the event.
-Points can be suppressed through replacement. Perhaps you don't oppose freedom of speech in principle, and you would happily allow a top ten Nazi Officials segment on your news channel. However, you only have a finite number of slots in the day for segments so you decide to remove the top ten Nazi Officials segment for a segment on something more... informative. In theory you permit top ten Nazi Officials segments, but in practice you will never actually have one on your channel.
Now, again, the former gains much more attention than the latter. Because the former is a direct middle finger while the latter is more of an "oops sorry" kind of deal. Cases of college students getting speakers deplatformed for example. However, even if the latter is much more benign than the former, they both have the same effect - no top ten Nazi Officials segments =(.
So, on the subject of functional replacement, obviously a lot of it is happening in our cable news. Not just in what news stories are covered, but who is actually hired to cover the news stories. People who are complacent and don't question the wider narrative are hired / promoted in favour of those who are critical, so that discourse only happens within a permissible overton window. In practice, we end up with a cable news which does the bidding of big corporations and the state nearly just as much as a propaganda network in another country, but the population is far less cognizant / angry about it because it feels so much less aggressive.
Functional replacement also happens on social media, through the use of algorithms. In recent years, social media companies have started trying to twist their algorithms to show perspectives and news stories approved by the status quo. If you watch 10 youtube videos from some independent political commentator, your recommendations will still be flooded by BBC/CNN/Fox/exc. because youtube is trying to show you "authoritative sources".
Frankly, I also find "freedom of speech" to be a kind of crude entry-point into the larger issues. If the government were to force youtube to adopt a politically neutral algorithm and not take down political videos, that could arguably be a violation of free speech, in the same way forcing a small forum to allow people to discuss Nazism freely would be a form of authoritarianism in and of itself. The Koch brothers have spent billions funding propaganda that downplays or outright denies climate change. However, if the government were to forbid individuals or massive corporations from funding advertisement / propaganda campaigns larger than a certain financial limit, that could also arguably be an infringement of their freedom of speech. I find "freedom of mind" or "discourse control" or whatever you want to be better talking points, imo.
Anyway, hopefully this post has more value than just a slightly more concrete version of what Helz is describing lol.
A very basic example would be asking a Catholic to separate the ideas of the Vatican as a power structure from the religion. No mater what aspects of cannibalism, torture, incest, rape, pedophilia, or blackmail committed by the Vatican you present; some Catholics will refuse to disentangle their religion from that power structure and see challenging the morality of the Vatican as an attack on the Catholic religion itself.
This is not to say morality is subjective but rather that understanding morality may touch on some core belief structures most people are just not constitutionally capable of dealing with in a mature way.
Consider that definition I gave and tell me if I am wrong.
If not you donít refute that definition cite pretty much every marketing campaign that has ever existed in any way as an example. The most overt these days would be things like CNN vs FOX News while the most impactful very few are even capable of recognizing. For a few popular ones I would mention-
-Breakfast is the most important meal of the day (and why is bacon a breakfast food at all)
-Streets belong to cars / calling people a ďmentally deficient moronĒ through the word ĎJayí became normal
-Origins of the electoral college
-Pretty much every rights movement ever that functions on the moral justification of equality while pushing against equality
-Your testosterone should be checked regularly and its in need of treatment as abnormal Ďlow tí even if over 50% of men are considered as Ďlow tí
-Jump in our Ďsell thisí pyramid scheme today because if you get 4 people to buy in after you and they get 4 people ect.. it will make you money (even though if you repeat that process 12 times it exceeds the population of the world)
-Give to God because X scripture demands X% of your money and its Gods will you give it to me
I think I question how this answer matters more than I want to think about the answer. I just do not believe people are capable of accepting their own bias.
The feminist will always call the critic of the ghostbusters remake who suggests equality of alimony, child custody and prison sentence a sexist evil pig and consider any such position an immoral attack on their belief structure. But why?
Why is this division so prominent and accepted? Why do we look at these established structures and accept them? What is it about the learned behavior that drives our nature to conform to terrible belief structures even when reason is presented against it?
I barely understand how much I do not understand but I value the knowledge of what I do not understand over that which I do. Most of the time the question holds more value than the answer and the understanding of your ignorance is the beginning of true knowledge. This goes further but I do not think there is value in mentioning it.
When we move from creating a product to creating a need for a product we can make its wrong.
When we convert our information systems into methods to convey ideology's it is wrong.
When we shift from searching for the understanding of our existence to searching for how we can create whats comfortable for us that fits into whats around us is that what allows evil to exist?
A lot of it just deals with the measurement of ethics vs liability vs morality though. Im not sure if I could say anything profound on that subject. Maybe someone would look at something I said as profound there but it would just be regurgitation of existing logic models. But then again isnt that like 90% of conversations? Just walking through previously discussed concepts people at least pretend to not know to understand just to arrive at a desired conclusion which is... once again... marketing.
Notice the rhetoric that builds the social issue. I could easily throw another 100 references of people that want to spell out some mix of 'cops bad, cops racist, cops evil' ect where its blatantly apparent. At this point its not about arguing about 'what' happened but rather about how people receive information. You have to not only consider the information that is available but also how the conclusion was drawn about the information.
Those that created and retweeted those videos were looking out so much for the message they wanted to convey, they skipped out on being skeptical of the information they were repeating. A lot of people are blind, yes.
I can also recommend sc2mafia to watch the video, but personally I would not go out and find more videos like it. Acknowledging misinformation exists and combating it are two different things.
I was going to respond to the Eugenics thing, but then I skimmed a page out of the Standford Encyclopedia of Philosophy and kinda well... realized that describing myself as a utilitarian was inaccurate. I'll go do altruistic things that benefit the most people, but I don't expect other people to do so, I just hope they do. Thanks for your answer regardless.
How do you fight this, though? The answer comes back to the previous point: improving education and quality of life will allow people to have a better judgement and more tools to fight misinformation.
Freedom of speech is not the whole point, indeed, but it is the most critically challenged part of freedom of mind at the moment. People are not too busy trying to survive to think about such things, nor are they unable to have access to information they need to be aware of most society-related or nation-related things, like peasants in the Middle Ages. People are letting their freedom of speech become censored in the "soft way" you just very well described. And while "freedom of mind" is the goal, it is impossible to attain without freedom of speech, which is why it has to be addressed as a specific issue. As for discourse control, it's part of freedom of speech and of its issues.
Note that while "soft control" is insidiously, yet durably harmful, "hard control" is blatantly and strongly harmful. You cannot expect to have more than very little "freedom of the mind" in a society that does not recognize human rights (under the United Nations' definition) and makes use of force to remove divergent point of views. You may already have had that in mind, but I want to clarify that while soft control must be closely watched and fought in its abuses, hard control must also be closely watched, because it's at least as damaging as its soft version. No top ten Nazi Officials happen in both cases, but against soft control, you can still make noise and say that you were shut off. If you're in jail or in grave, you can't.
For 99% of people here living in first-world countries, your free speech won't be infringed on by the government. The only time it will be is if you're advocating for genocide or violence, at which point (IMO) maybe you should be stopped, or re-evaluate your life at the very least.
I think free speech is good because restricting speech is restricting freedom, which I hold to be a bad thing. Freedom of thought is also good, because it leads humans to a more generally (or situationally) beneficial conclusion about a topic. Unfortunately, some people are less capable of rational thought, or don't put in the effort to educate themselves about certain topics. I don't know the solution for this while maintaining absolute free speech. If some dumbass promotes antivax ideas and ends up getting children killed, how can that be dealt with? I'd like to see concrete, practical opinions on this.
People have been talking about marketing and media or whatever that influences thought en masse in a presumably negative way. Unfortunately, where there is free speech and gullible/irrational people, there will also be people to take advantage of them to push a narrative for profit or political motives. This is a bit of a weird thing to address because it's neither a point for or against free speech. You can say that the end result of this manipulation is stifling of free speech, but this is also almost an inevitability in a completely free society. Rather, I consider it more an argument against capitalism, because capitalism is what allows organizations outside of the government to consolidate power and resources and push opinions and ideas.
I think that attempting to censor extremist propaganda can only be so effective. You canít cover all possible forms of extremism... people have been killing each other over ideals since time immemorial. Communism and fascism did not exist prior to 1860-1920. Who knows what the future holds? We may yet see the rise of a new extremist ideology at some point.
Besides, attempting to censor it only forces the adherents to present their ideology in a seemingly acceptable way, or to even switch to a completely separate but still equally murderous ideology. Many of the Italian Fascists had been members of the socialist party, for instance.
I thought I had replied to this. Guess not.
His point on "soft control" is very important, and it seems to be lacking from your vision. In the societies you are talking about, the government will not use hard control. However, the government and/or the media can and do use soft control. If your point is that this soft control is inevitable, that falls into the tolerance paradox Sen brought up at the beginning of this thread. While it's impossible to completely suppress control, unnecessary and "malevolent", personal interest-driven control is to be... controlled. Because that infringes on free speech while not defending it. It only hurts free speech. If you're telling me that things like the Cambridge Analytics scandal are not hurting free speech, implying there is no reason to make laws against that, then I really wonder what your definition of free speech is.
Disclaimer: Yes, I am aware that freedom of speech is only a part of a bigger picture of general freedom, call it "freedom of the mind" if you want to. But it remains an important part of that bigger picture, and without it, the "freedom of the mind" would be impossible, so freedom of speech is necessary to address.
Can the next game start? These discussions are so boring
Originally Posted by BananaCucho
I do think it's possible that free speech could exist under other economic systems, under very ideal and perhaps unattainable circumstances. A socialist economy with a benevolent government might decide to take ownership of state media and keep it as unbiased as possible. There would still be inherent, irreducible human bias, but in a perfect world, that's the only way I can see actual free speech occurring over the long term. Also, bear in mind, I don't think that will ever happen.
Fair, I agree with all of this. It's a bit why I think socialism (in its stricter meaning, not communism lol) is better than full capitalism... but that's another debate, although it's related.
USA is having fun. What's with all that social media and trumps new order? Does it suit this topic well?
Should we blame the OP for the recent events?
Cryptonic made this sig
Somewhat. Twitter is trying to have their cake and eat it too. From what I have read the EO correctly calls out Twitter and social media as a whole on their bullshit. You simply can't claim to be a platform free of liabilities of the content posted, yet curate content as if you're a publisher. Social media needs to be knocked down a fair bit because the perceived notion of what most people use it for and think its for, weighed up against the direction the board members have pushed the company towards are getting further and further apart.
https://twitter.com/i/events/1265330601034256384) to one of Trump's tweets is hardly curation or censorship. Even if it was, suggesting that the government should be allowed to somehow curtail or censor that is a direct attack on free speech in America. I don't understand how there's any controversy on this.
I don't like Trump and I think majority of the shit he posts is dribble at best. But this path Twitter is walking down where they are claiming they know what is best and to trust them I don't like. For me it's the precedent it's setting, not so much the content that's being targeted to get the ball rolling. I wasn't aware of the mail in thing until I clicked that link. What I knew of is they basically quarantined another post of his that can't be replied to and you have to opt into viewing it (https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump - linking directly doesn't show what I mean).
And yes I think the last line of his tweet was terrible, but for Twitter to step in and to force context onto what he meant by it is gross. Personally I just figured that he meant that continued extreme rioting can be met with extreme riot control, aka shooting. Now Twitter is telling me he is getting a hard on at the thought of shooting people so they had to censor his post. Honestly if people think they can riot so violently without repercussions they are delusional. Yes Trump could have worded it better but its a pretty fair point of what happens in riots.
Also there was a post/thread somewhere about perception of information but I can't find it. I have lost count how many times these riots have been labeled as protests and it it's starting to annoy me. If that isn't clear manipulation of information to be framed in a certain light I don't know what is.
This is largely irrelevant, in any case, since Trump didn't even do anything in response to Twitter hiding his tweet. He did the EO in response to Twitter's fact checking link. So I'm going to address that and not the shooting tweet, because the shooting tweet wasn't even in the cards when he freaked out and had a tantrum. In effect, he had two conflicting opinions:
1) He expressed dismay and freaked the fuck out over Twitter putting the link on his tweet, and said that he wants to take action against Twitter for that. This is an extremely worrying statement that directly expresses his desire to remove the ability of companies and individuals to comment and call Trump out on his lies. If anyone actually supports or even excuses Trump on this, you need to take a very close look at yourself and your commitment to so-called "neutrality" and/or support of someone who has expressed desire to use legal force to censor individuals and companies.
2) He wrote an EO that actually removes legal protections on social media sites, meaning that (should this become policy) suing websites for their content will be easier. This seems unusual since it means that websites will actually be more legally responsible for removing misleading and violent/hateful content (like what Trump posts) but is also extremely worrying given the unprecedented number of federal judge appointments Trump has made.
To be 100% clear, the executive order was issued before Twitter hid Trump's tweet. All of Trump's actions, including the EO and desire to censor Twitter, were made solely in response to them putting a link on this tweet: https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/...55835124539392
They should ban trump from Twitter and make him use MySpace
Cryptonic made this sig
Well that's the issue right there, you and I have interpreted what he said differently but Twitter has forced their god hand onto it to mean specifically something. I know Twitter does have the right to do what it wants with its own product but I think its bullshit they get to act like a platform where they are not liable for the content posted, then go on to curate said content to their own personal opinions. I think social media entirely is crap which is why I don't use any of the big ones. Even the Zuck commented on this saying he disagrees with Twitters policy and that social media should not act like arbiters of truth.
It's also not very productive to address whether what Twitter did was good or bad here because they still acted within the law, and now Trump is showing a desire to restrict free speech and first amendment rights in response to this. Politeness and bullshit factor aren't relevant when it comes to free speech.
Every single website does the same thing. So do we. Nobody here is liable if someone posts illegal content, we still delete posts containing insults and racial slurs because we think this isn't the place for it. How is Twitter morally different? If someone here makes a post saying that they think that all the cops in Minneapolis should get lynched, they'll probably have their post deleted.
Not that any of that even particularly matters, because it's addressing the second tweet that Twitter took action on, when Trump only responded to the first.
Neither should social media stand by allowing blatant lies to float around which result in pain and death of many people.
Cryptonic made this sig
I mean if you want to just look at the first tweet in a vacuum, it's not that bad in all truth. The source is fair and it basically says that Trumps tweet wasn't exactly wrong but he did fluff it up. I don't care. I'd rather they didn't but they are free to push features down our consumer throats.
My issue lies more so with the second tweet. They have taken a statement and framed it to mean specifically something. For arguments sake lets look at it where it was deemed worthy of stepping in on.
"Any difficulty and we will assume control but, when the looting starts, the shooting starts. Thank you!"
What if he meant by "the shooting starts" he meant "chaos starts" and by that he means he wants to 'assume control, but with the rioting it's going to get messy'.
What if he meant by "when the looting starts, the shooting starts" he means violent rioting will be met with adequate force to subdue it, aka shooting (tear gas, non-lethal rounds and lethal rounds, whatever).
What if he meant by "when the looting starts, the shooting starts" he means everyone not looting go shoot the looters.
This is what I mean that they have forced context onto a statement that doesn't explicitly mean what they are saying it means. Is it absurd to think that people violently rioting and looting will be fired upon? If people find that offensive then they are straight up delusional and think actions should have no repercussions. It's the equivalent of putting your head in the sand when you can't face the truth.
Last edited by rumox; May 29th, 2020 at 07:58 AM.
Trump didn't issue an EO, or say that Twitter should be controlled more, because his tweet was hidden. He did it solely because Twitter put the fact check link on his tweet. All that matters here is that Trump wanted to act and use legal pressure on Twitter for putting an opinion out in public in response to a tweet containing false information.
In response to the context thing: Trump and Trumpists in general have a habit of saying things that can be interpreted in multiple ways by different groups of people, which is quite problematic. Yes, you could argue that he might have meant one of multiple things. But with the statements he often makes, it doesn't actually matter whether there's a "sane" interpretation. To people who are rallied by calls of violence and are looking for an excuse or some sort of validation to be violent, they'll see that in Trump's tweet. He has a duty, as the leader of a country, to moderate his words and not create statements so ambiguous that they could incite violence. If 10% of his supporters earnestly see this as a call to action, does it matter that the other 90% think it isn't? I would argue the ambiguity is intentional, to give himself plausible deniability while satisfying that 10% of supporters that want to see bloodshed.
This is illustrated by a video that Trump tweeted a couple of days ago, in which a presenter says "The only good Democrat is a dead Democrat". The crowd cheers and laughs, and then the presenter says something like "Of course people are gonna take that out of context, obviously I mean dead politically, not literally dead." Before he clarified, how much of the crowd do you think understood that he didn't actually say that Democrats should die? Were they cheering for that, or for the "correct" interpretation? Now that he clarified, will those people let go of the idea they cheered for, that Democrats should die?
I feel like I will just go in circles talking to you. I literally said in my second post I wasn't even aware of the first tweet and my issue was with the second one so I don't see why you keep bringing it up. The EO, as much as I don't care for it either besides a line from it which sums up my opinion of social media, goes into detail about other topics not just poor Trumps fact check. But again, beside my point.
Can Trump speak better? Yes definitely. Should Twitter impose context onto someone's statement as they seem fit? Hell no. If people go out and shoot looters because daddy Trump "told them to" based off that tweet I will be fucking surprised. Ridiculous.
I don't know about Twitter imposing context to be truthful. I don't like the idea of large corporations imposing their idea of speech onto people's tweets. At the same time, I think in this particular circumstance, it was for the public good. His tweet was specifically meant to rile up violence, just like many of his past ones. I'd also be surprised if someone went out and shot looters because of it, but maybe people will be more inspired to commit hate crimes elsewhere in the nation? There's already been a visible uptick in hate crimes due to his past rhetoric, it's not unreasonable that his recent tweets would also spur more of that.
Secretly though, I hope Twitter keeps it up because watching Trump and his supporters cry like little bitch made pussies is absolutely hilarious.
In any case, if Twitter was worried about Trump drones killing because of that message they would use the term that is more applicable which is incitement of violence. They didn't and used glorifying violence. Better ban all Superheroes from Twitter. Don't forget to ban Quinten Tarintino as well. It's such an irrational reason to censor someone and now a precedent has been set it's going to be inconsistent as hell with implementation. If they don't follow up with this precedent being set with future posts being hidden it's just going to feed into the spastic alt rights rhetoric.
Iíve just read about the riot + watched a video of what was happening. Unbelievable. And Twitter is trying to censor that? You could almost say Twitter is trying to egg people on, not Trump... the way Iím reading that tweet, if the riot continues or escalates, the police may start shooting live rounds. I agree with rumox that you have to be delusional to think that you can just get away with that kind of violence.
Personally, is you ask me, this just shows that some people (like Warren), should probably go to jail. Itís unacceptable to be criticizing Trump when itís fajrly likely heís threatening the rioters with retaliation. I donít agree this is really an ambiguous message on Trumps part, but thatís probably just a matter of interpretation.
Unbelievable that this could happen in the US. This wouldnít even happen here. We had a protest a few months ago, the farmers protested against something (I believe it was taxes? I donít remember exactly).
this thread is about to get a whole lot spicier
Why was a journalist arrested today lol
People crying about "freedom of speech" not being allowed on a social media platform all the time. Pay attention. That's what freedom of speech being infringed is. Not a business deciding what content it doesn't want to allow on its platform.
Last edited by BananaCucho; May 29th, 2020 at 11:33 AM.
Originally Posted by BananaCucho
I guess itís also possible he means that they wonít be able to contain the situation if it gets really ugly. But egging people on? Iím almost 100% positive that wasnít what he was saying.
Lol. You think allowing the law enforcement to shoot the rioters is a good idea?
Right after it started from law enforcement killing someone who didn't deserve it?
How could you even trust them to shoot the "correct people". You want them to be jury judge and executioner?
And you want them to arrest a politician for criticizing? Wtf?
Cryptonic made this sig
If they start setting buildings ablaze and possibly kill people, something needs to be done. Live rounds might be overdoing it, but beanbags and tasers would be an appropriate response. I donít want them to arrest a politician for criticizing the tweet, because I think she actually just completely reframed his tweet. I think the fact that people are using this to further their political agenda is deplorable.
Originally Posted by BananaCucho
I'm not sure I understand this thought process at all
Why is Trumps speech protected under the 1st amendment, but someone criticizing him is not? And should... GO TO JAIL?? WTF? How is that not a display of completely biased, partisan thinking?
Originally Posted by BananaCucho
This is why I shouldn't read these threads. I just can't even right now.
Originally Posted by BananaCucho