[fuvkthisguy]

Honestly I think this just doesn't work out this way in reality. First of all, we know that deplatforming racists/fascists does actually help to stop the spread of racist/fascist ideas.

Secondly, and I think this is the more salient point, encountering racist/sexist/transphobic/whatever speech as a person who is the target of such rhetoric is immediately harmful and othering, especially when these views aren't actively challenged or disavowed by society. This doesn't even include the possibility that hearing hate speech might trigger some prior trauma experienced because of one's identity.

By taking this stance, you're implicitly advocating the allowance of direct threats to other people's very existence, under the justitification that everyone will be better off that way because it's all out in the open. To me, that just sounds like you don't really understand the impact that hate speech can have on a person's ability to live with the same freedoms and opportunities that other members of society enjoy.

Example: You have a job interview downtown, but you're black and the Klan has a parade scheduled that day, and you're scared of the calls for violence. You don't make the interview, so you obviously don't get the job. You were denied the opportunity to because of the 'free speech' of others.

I for one would like to see more focus on Freedom of Association alongside Freedom of Speech in discussions like these - you can argue whatever you like, but nobody has to listen to you or give you a platform (and if you're a fascist, they shouldn't, and should be actively deplatforming you because your ideas are so awful/dangerous).

[AnthonyMouse]

> First of all, we know that deplatforming racists/fascists does actually help to stop the spread of racist/fascist ideas.

People often claim this but there doesn't seem to be any real evidence of it. You get a short-term effect because the target has to regroup, but then they move to a platform with no moderating influences and become even more radicalized. See Voat.

> Secondly, and I think this is the more salient point, encountering racist/sexist/transphobic/whatever speech as a person who is the target of such rhetoric is immediately harmful and othering, especially when these views aren't actively challenged or disavowed by society. This doesn't even include the possibility that hearing hate speech might trigger some prior trauma experienced because of one's identity.

Your theory is directly contrary to various clinical treatments for anxiety (e.g. exposure therapy) which are altogether more healthy and sustainable -- learning to accept that other people disagree with you and have contrary opinions is a much more robust solution than embracing fragility and trying to nerf the world.

Inoculating the population to fascist rhetoric by publicly winning the debate against it with reasoned argument removes its power. Refusing to do so makes it stronger, because then when people are exposed to it, they are more vulnerable having never learned how to defend themselves against it.

> Example: You have a job interview downtown, but you're black and the Klan has a parade scheduled that day, and you're scared of the calls for violence.

You are trying to make a case against speech by making an argument against violence. If the Klan commits violence they should be arrested. If they are deterred from violence by the real threat of arrest then there is no reason to fear going to your job interview no matter what they say.

[flamble]

> See Voat.

The retreat to Voat was highly detrimental to the fascists because it massively hindered recruitment, the most effective form of which was to have moderator control of large subreddits not explicitly about politics, but saturated with far-right memes / "ironic" jokes, to slowly normalise and inculcate those ideas in people who are originally just there out of interest in some hobby. In contrast, very few people go to Voat who aren't already true believers. It's a much greater leap than from one subreddit to another.

> learning to accept that other people disagree with you and have contrary opinions is a much more robust solution

If there are people who believe in a Jewish conspiracy to destroy the white race through miscegenation, and they advocate for violent resistance in response, then "learning to accept" that is not in any way a solution.

> Inoculating the population to fascist rhetoric by publicly winning the debate against it with reasoned argument

Two points: (a) the overwhelming majority of political content consists of arguments presented without rebuttal. In the case of far-right content, it almost entirely consists of arguments against straw men, citing pseudoscience, deceitful abuse of statistics, and grandiose appeals to emotion. You can consume countless hours of content without actually encountering a genuine debate.

(b) Have you ever watched a debate between a fascist and a non-fascist? Even in response to comprehensive dismantling of their ideas, fascists remain completely insensible to facts (they can always fall back on "fake Jewish science") or reason. Some small fraction of viewers may be convinced by the debates, but the mere fact of something having been cogently debunked does very little overall.

[AnthonyMouse]

> In contrast, very few people go to Voat who aren't already true believers.

That's exactly the problem. It creates a space where there is nothing but fascist propaganda so that anyone who ends up there gets trapped in an extremist bubble where nobody who could bring the back to reality ever goes to rescue them.

Meanwhile if you want to give them a recruitment tool, start censoring anything even slightly right of center so that moderates start looking for a platform that doesn't.

Which plays right into their stupid conspiracy theory narrative because now they have real instances of censorship they can point to in claiming the "truth" they're telling you is being suppressed.

> If there are people who believe in a Jewish conspiracy to destroy the white race through miscegenation, and they advocate for violent resistance in response, then "learning to accept" that is not in any way a solution.

Violence isn't speech. Violence is illegal.

If somebody wants to argue that you shouldn't marry outside of your "race" because of some ridiculous Jewish conspiracy, make the argument why they're wrong. If they commit an act of violence, put them in jail.

> the overwhelming majority of political content consists of arguments presented without rebuttal

It's a discussion forum. The rebuttal is you posting a rebuttal. There are more of you than there are of the fascists, right? Because otherwise we've already got a bit of a problem, democracy-wise.

> Have you ever watched a debate between a fascist and a non-fascist? Even in response to comprehensive dismantling of their ideas, fascists remain completely insensible to facts (they can always fall back on "fake Jewish science") or reason. Some small fraction of viewers may be convinced by the debates, but the mere fact of something having been cogently debunked does very little overall.

You're not expected to convince the zealot. You're expected to convince the audience why the zealot is a zealot. Appeals to "Jewish science" and the like are how they lose the audience, because the only people who are going to buy that are the other zealots.

Having the debate does very much overall, because it's how we got to the point where most people aren't fascists. The fascists are the ones whose ideas aren't strong enough to stand without censoring the opposition. When your position can stand up to scrutiny you don't need to censor the opposition.

[heavyset_go]

> Your theory is directly contrary to various clinical treatments for anxiety (e.g. exposure therapy) which are altogether more healthy and sustainable

Reading slurs online isn't exposure therapy. Exposure therapy consists of controlled situations and counseling led by licensed therapists. No therapist would suggest that their clients should expose themselves to abusive and toxic environments as "exposure therapy".

Please don't cherry pick techniques you don't understand from fields you aren't familiar with to support your opinions.

[AnthonyMouse]

The purpose of exposure therapy is to desensitize the patient to the stimulus, rather than wishing against all evidence that the stimulus would never be encountered, so that when they do encounter it in the world, it doesn't trigger them. The argument isn't that hate speech is exposure therapy, it's that the likes of exposure therapy are a better solution than censorship to prevent people from being harmed by contemptible third party speech.

[hypersoar]

I've had exposure therapy and seen it at work with others. This talking point really pisses me off. The "likes of exposure therapy" are not exposure therapy. Exposing yourself to something traumatic or distressing (and I mean "distressing" in a mental health sense) is a very tricky thing. Going overboard can have serious consequences. This is why it's done very deliberately, or even with supervision. Randomly encountering triggering content while going about your day is what it's supposed to prepare you for, but it's sure as hell not how it's done.

Please stop spreading mental health disinformation.

[AnthonyMouse]

You're misreading what I wrote. Here it is again:

> The argument isn't that hate speech is exposure therapy, it's that the likes of exposure therapy are a better solution than censorship to prevent people from being harmed by contemptible third party speech.

The point is, people who are being triggered by third party speech should go get exposure therapy, from a professional, or "the likes of exposure therapy" -- some other treatment -- so that they are prepared for the world, instead of insisting on constraining the world to be only what they're prepared for -- which isn't even possible because the set of ideas different people find distressing are different.

Suppose I'm triggered by the imposition of censorship.

[refurb]

First of all, we know that deplatforming racists/fascists does actually help to stop the spread of racist/fascist ideas.

How do we know that? Has a study been done? Are there surveys that track it over time?

Racists beliefs have decreased over the past 50 years. I haven't seen any evidence it's spiked since the advent of the internet.

More visible? Sure. But more visible doesn't mean more people hold those beliefs.

[fuvkthisguy]

By induction - repeated exposure to ideas increases their staying power in the mind - see advertising.

If one accepts the premise that fascist ideas spread by exposure, then one way to limit their spread is to limit said exposure.

Sidenote: I'm increasingly frustrated with this increase in veneration of scientific studies, as if studies are the only way or even the best way of attaining or approximating truth. I would like to see more acceptance of lived experience as admissible evidence in matters of debate.

[controversy]

My response is that everyone should carry. If the Klan goes nuts, the Klan gets shot. Eventually the system will react an equilibrium.

I agree with your freedom of association. My only note would be that removing people from the means of financial transactions is the same as limiting speech.

[ben_w]

Vengeance doesn’t bring back the dead.

The prisoner’s dilemma has the equilibrium of defect-defect.

If racists regularly shoot ethnic minorities, that means members of those minorities have good reason to shoot first in preemptive self-defence; there will inevitably be errors, and then the ethnic group the racists belong to will do the same, and suddenly you have a literal race war.

Likewise for any other distinction that people fight over besides race.

[labster]

I tend to prefer solutions to social problems where no one gets shot.

[controversy]

As do I. The fact of the matter is that the cops average 11 minutes to respond in good areas. They take longer in high crime areas. Further, we've seen that the cops are generally bad people. So leave policing to the average person.

If the Klan attacks people, they can freely be shot. If the Klan parades around in their sheets, meh.

[x86_64Ubuntu]

Carrying doesn't prevent anyone from getting shot. And there were plenty of instances in the US where the Klan attacked blacks with few repercussions.

[lopmotr]

Why do you talk so much about these abstract problems while neglecting the real ones? Black people get shot every day and it's not by the KKK or the police, it's by other black people. They are the real danger, not some parade with slogans. Other blacks is the major violence problem facing blacks in America today and has been for many decades but nobody seems to care. Blacks and Hispanics shooting members of their own groups accounts for most of America's excess shootings compared to other high gun ownership countries. But it doesn't fit well with your political ideology so you ignore it.

A more realistic version of your job interview example is that it's in a rival gang occupied part of town. KKK isn't shooting blacks but black gang members are. Facebook doesn't seem to be able to stop that.

[fuvkthisguy]

No, I'm pretty sure the cops are murdering black people.

Your analysis is sorely lacking in context for <i>why</i> black communities have higher rates of crime (hint: it's systemic racism, namely poverty and overpolicing).