[UrukParthian]

Toxic statements = statements from a different political orientation

Why are people so willing to embrace Orwellian doublethink? My prediction is that such a sword will do decapitate undeserving people of all political aisles.

[s73v3r_]

"Toxic statements = statements from a different political orientation"

Wrong. Saying so is dangerously minimizing the problem.

[zaroth]

Have you been following what’s going on in the UK with their anti-“hate” speech laws?

Tweet something that someone decides is offensive to them, get a visit from the police? I’d say it’s a very rational concern that these regulations would be weaponized against “wrongthink”.

[s73v3r_]

I'm not saying the UK's way is the way to go. But trying to handwave away the problem of toxicity with, "It's just people who can't handle' differing opinions" not right either.

[pjc50]

The number of actual prosecutions or even visits from the police is tiny, and when you look at the actual cases they tend to be racist death or rape threats.

[zaroth]

"Arrests for offensive Facebook and Twitter posts soar in London" [1]

"Arrests for 'offensive' Twitter and Facebook messages up by a third" [2]

"British Police Arrest At Least 3,395 People for ‘Offensive’ Online Comments in One Year" [3]

"Police arresting nine people a day in fight against web trolls" [4]

"More than 3,300 people were detained and questioned last year over so-called trolling on social media and other online forums, a rise of nearly 50 per cent in two years, according to figures obtained by The Times.

About half of the investigations were dropped before prosecutions were brought, however, leading to criticism from civil liberties campaigners that the authorities are over-policing the internet and threatening free speech...."

[1] - http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/arrests-for-offensive-f...

[2] - http://www.theregister.co.uk/2016/06/02/social_media_arrests...

[3] - http://www.breitbart.com/london/2017/10/14/british-police-ar...

[4] - https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/police-arresting-nine-peo...

[s73v3r_]

None of those articles mention the content of the posts.

[zaroth]

There are a few examples in there. Here’s a few more [1]. Mostly it’s ill advised mouthing off, or blowing off steam as was the case of the guy delayed hours at an airport. These are not “true threats” or incitement, which are charged differently.

[1] - https://www.makeuseof.com/tag/killallwhitemen-twitter-trolli...

[UrukParthian]

Dangerously minimizing? What's dangerous is a culture addicted to simulating political action by managing online comments. Instead if putting resources to making your local garden great, to mangle Nietzsche of Ecco Homo, people get worked up by actions they have no control over instead of working locally to change conditions where they could have an impact.

And you lack imagination and historical hindsight if you think the concept of "toxicity" can only be wielded by whatever you consider to be the forces of light. So to speak.

[s73v3r_]

"Dangerously minimizing?"

Yes. Pretending that the problem of toxicity is just people who can't handle differing opinions is to be willfully ignorant of the problem. As such, a reasonable conversation can not be had.

"And you lack imagination and historical hindsight if you think the concept of "toxicity" can only be wielded by whatever you consider to be the forces of light. So to speak."

Nowhere did I say that in the least.

[UrukParthian]

You're spoiled beyond belief if you view "toxic" comments online as a serious problem. If it is truly "a problem", then the larger problem is tying your emotions to what anonymous people say. You live vicariously through an image of how offended someone else might be. Instead of tending to the garden you can actually protect and uphold.

Do you think the poor bastards in Skid Row feel better because some (literal) white typed in defense against toxicity?

Do you think someone...Let's say Tim Wise! Do you think Mr.Wise has actually interacted with black communities while he lives in a 98% white neighborhood? Do you think Mr.Wise would help some homeless junkie who's trying to figure out how to work his phone so he can message an estranged daughter on Facebook? That's part of what I did in Skid Row. There are issues of knowledge, skills, and plain diet that would offer much better benefits than speaking out against some notion of "toxicity", created by people who have no skin in bleating their stupid moralism.

[s73v3r_]

Sorry, but this idea of "Sticks and Stones" hasn't been true for a long, long time. You may be able to shug off terrible, racist, bigoted slurs hurled at you, but people who have that slung at them day after day after day might not be, and I'm not going to blame them for not wanting to take it anymore.

[lopmotr]

Then why are they on the racist slur subreddit? Same with Twitter, you don't have to follow people who insult you, or the people who retweet the insults to you.

[iamcasen]

You could argue that toxic comments on the internet are the only reason the current president got elected in the US. Should said president lead us to a nuclear holocaust, or any number of other real possibilities due to his proven negligence, toxic internet comments would have a very real impact on the material conditions of citizens in this country.

[lopmotr]

Huh? What if Clinton had won and started a nuclear holocaust? Who's to blame then? You must be opposed to all political advertising for the party you don't like because somehow you're able to see that it's bad and the other half of the population isn't. That's being hopelessly blinded by partisanship.

[sincerely]

The article is largely about removing flagrantly racist content (the subreddits they listed as examples were like r/KKK and r/CoonTown) and various illegal content like bestiality videos. It seems disingenuous to classify these as simply "different political orientation".

[prepend]

As much I disagree with racists, I believe that a healthy society must allow them to speak.

I tried to find a quote from Dershowitz’s book on defending Nazis but gave up due to paywall.

Toxic is not an objective measure for speech. But like in real life, toxicity depends on the dose. Life doesn’t eliminate toxins, it reduces them to manageable levels (or dies).

There’s also the practical effect that banning is irreversible. Toxicity is not terminal, but banning doesn’t allow for redemption.

[cryoshon]

agreed. but consider how the people being banned will see things.

i don't suggest we cater to them, just that we realize their way of thinking and reacting.