[botwriter]

Why does the left have to censor the right? Surely they should be able to beat the right with logical and reasoned arguments?

Censorship has always struck me as a tool that a side which isn't confident in its arguments uses.

[FridgeSeal]

Because every single time the left agrees to sit down and have a conversation with “reason and logical arguments” they get met with bad-fair arguments.

In spite of this, they keep offering. As soon as they do anything except bend-over-backwards to accomodate the right, they are met with “so much for the tolerant left”. Is it any surprise that people get fed up when this is all they’re ever met with. If you can’t come to the table and behave like an adult, don’t be surprised when you get relegated to the kids table.

[pixl97]

"Meet in the middle" says the man in bad faith.

You take one step forward, he takes one step back.

"Meet in the middle" says the man in bad faith.

[Frondo]

I am quite worried for the future of the country when Republican voters elected not one but two adherents of QAnon to the House of Representatives.

What is any sort of reasoned debate about policy going to look like when one of the participants is coming into it with a set of beliefs as divergent from reality as QAnon?

[zepto]

“every single time the left agrees to sit down and have a conversation with “reason and logical arguments” they get met with bad-fair arguments“

Absolutely true.

Also true:

“every single time the right agrees to sit down and have a conversation with “reason and logical arguments” they get met with bad-fair arguments“

[ratww]

A large portion of extremists are not willing to discuss the results of the election even with other Republicans. People were calling Pence a traitor, boycotting Fox, etc.

Those people are not willing to talk to or listen to anyone who's supposedly on their side but has a different opinion. What makes you think they will listen to the "other side"?

[throw0101a]

> People were calling Pence a traitor

More than that:

> Others called for Vice President Mike Pence — who enraged Trump when he acknowledged that he did not have the power to unilaterally throw out electoral college votes — to be tried for treason. One Facebook post, quickly deleted, said Pence, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell should be hanged.

* https://apnews.com/article/donald-trump-conspiracy-theories-...

See also:

* https://www.businessinsider.com/nooses-spotted-as-pro-trump-...

[LetsPlayNice]

I understand what you're saying, but in my limited experience, it appears it isn't exactly what information is being presented so much as How it is presented. Often I see some with a differing opinion begin along the lines of: "You're an idiot Trumper, you're killing the planet!!" How about begin with a question to engage? For example: " why is it you think climate change doesn't exist? From the studies I've seen, I was convinced. " That's better right?

[LetsPlayNice]

ratww, I didn't intend to suggest perfection from either side. But, only one side wants to censor the other for their opinion, the manner in which they convey it, or broad association with extremists by way of similar beliefs on a much narrower subset of ideas.

My example of climate change was merely a "for instance" rather than for the topic of the example to become part of the discussion.

Point being, silencing one side doesn't work if the alleged reason is their ideas are so wrong they are too dangerous to be read unless you can properly show what you claim is "right".

[ratww]

I never mentioned anything about censorship here, so I don't see how this applies to my reply.

What I was objecting here is the theory that people on the right has been radicalised due to the left not wanting to discuss. I'm just demonstrating that not only the left wants to speak to the extremists, but also the right itself wants (Pence and Fox News). But the extremists don't care: they're even attacking both left and right preemptively. There's zero interest from extremists to understand opposing opinions.

This theory that the left is to blame for the radicalisation of those people holds absolutely no water.

[nxc18]

It’s really tiresome seeing the “Republicans are victims of the left“ meme over and over. You’ve controlled the government for years. You’ve mismanaged the pandemic, killing more Americans than world war 2. We’re not supposed to take the president’s words literally, unless he’s saying something that you happen to personally agree with.

And no, discussing studies doesn’t work. See the anti-vax debate. We’ve been pointing out the science on climate change and vaccines, clearly and respectfully, for _decades_ and it has not mattered.

I’ve never seen anyone directly start a persuasive argument with “you’re an idiot Trumper”. It isn’t that common. Your helpless victim attitude is showing.

Trump had every opportunity to win this election rightfully. He is not a victim and neither are you or his supporters. Stop playing one.

[ratww]

You seem to be requesting perfection from one side but not from the other.

To keep on the previous example: Pence and Fox News never called anyone "idiot Trumper" or anything and they are being attacked by that crowd.

About climate change: Greta Thunberg has been called all kinds of names without equivalent provocation.

And there's a lot of people willing to engage with climate change deniers in the way you're suggesting they should, but a large part of climate change deniers are not willing to accept that those people are acting in good faith. There's lot of accusations that non-deniers are paid shills and stuff like that.

Again, why does every person on one side has to be perfect, but the other side gets a pass? Even the Republicans can't control the Trump crowd.

[zepto]

The problem with this is that it’s black and white.

Yes, there are clearly completely intractable extremists who won’t engage in good faith.

But there are a lot of their people who will.

[ratww]

Absolutely, and I acknowledge that: the right itself is full of completely reasonable people that is being shunned by some of the extremists.

On the other hand, the same thing should apply to the left! Just because someone on the left has not been using logical arguments and acting in bad faith, it doesn't mean the whole left is doing it. People don't get a free pass on claiming "the left caused it" or (EDIT) "the left not talking to them is the reason they have this opinion".

[zepto]

‘"the left caused it"’

I agree that this is obvious bullishit.

But it’s also bullshit to say ‘the right caused it’.

How many people are getting a free pass on saying that right now?

[kevin_thibedeau]

A significant number of people are threatened by rational critical thinking. They instill these values in their children who then they go off on raving rampages touting false patriotism. You can't make them listen. Taking away their echo chambers is the only way to cool them off.

[jessaustin]

...is the only way...

Wait, has this actually worked before? Ever? Do you have examples? For instance, when they denied "radical Islamist groups" access to popular social media, "radical Islamist groups" just started using less popular social media that is harder to keep tabs on. "Radical Islamist groups" certainly haven't disappeared...

[mike00632]

YES. Recently many platforms were key in deplatforming ISIS and slowing the rate of radicalization. ISIS was an internet phenomenon and when their media was pushed to less famous outlets then their outreach was weakened.

Ever since the beginning of the Internet webhosting companies have colluded to deplatform the KKK and a few other notorious white supremacist groups. This has been largely successful in curbing the outreach of the KKK in the United States. It's also why YouTube is getting a lot of criticism for embracing white supremacist groups and facilitating thier growing outreach. This is a break from long-running comm business practices.

[bun_at_work]

I have an example - I remember a time before social media and internet populism. In those days these same groups existed, but were exclusively on the fringe. You didn't hear people bring up radical alt-right talking points, or sympathize with nazis, or spout outright racism (as much).

The fact of the matter is that echo chambers encourage extremism and social media is nothing but echo chambers.

Another fact of the matter is human psychology. Humans have a biological tendency to accept as truth the first opinion they hear on a topic. This is a result of evolution. If your tribe member tells you a berry is poisonous, is the first response to argue? Or to just listen. Better to be safe than sorry.

When you combine that bit of psychology with social media, you see people go online to some circle jerk, innocently at first, and then get radicalized.

Now before any counter examples get brought out, just consider that while it doesn't work this way for every person, in every context, it does work this way for some non-trivial amount of people, and that's what we're seeing. A lot of users on parler aren't domestic terrorists, but if it's even 1% who fall victim to basic human psychology, that's enough for what took place on Wednesday.

So yeah - the example is the time before social media.

[jessaustin]

The time before the printing press was invented is certainly not an example of "taking away printed materials". Both the printing press and social media exist now. You wrote lots of stuff without including the example I requested.

Also, if you didn't hear racism in USA in the 1980s you've led a very sheltered life.

[bun_at_work]

You must have misread my comment.

[tanseydavid]

"You can't make them listen."

You are correct about that but why are you so set on making other adults think the way you do?

[kevin_thibedeau]

I don't need them to think like me. I need them to be self-reflective enough to admit when they're wrong. You can see this inability in action when their pugnacious behavior is held up to the light and they immediately dodge with conspiracy theories about planted agitators from the other side.

[jessaustin]

I need them to be...

You're setting yourself up for lots of disappointment, in this life. If you truly need complete strangers you haven't met to do pyschological work for you, happiness will always slip away.

[dmingod666]

Maybe you're the one who's wrong, ever think of that?

[sillycon-valley]

From my side, you are wrong. The stances you think I have are probably inaccurate too. Your side seems to always lock us into a prison of two ideas without letting us speak for ourselves.

The extreme assumptions and generalizations don't help. There are many of us that don't agree with you but don't exactly line up with Republicans or even Trump supporters at times.

Many Trump supporters are Libertarians that do not agree full with Republican ideals completely, but it's the closest home.

[treeman79]

Lots of groups only accept one view point. Anyone that disagrees is attacked viciously.

It’s how the Scientologist operate. How China operates. It’s where America is/has going.

Next step is going to be a push to gather up all the guns. Wouldn’t want all the free thinkers getting any ideas now.

[okoslaatoo]

Venezuela operates like that too.

[8note]

That already happened though. Black people aren't allowed to have guns. That's why police shootings now have to mention "unarmed black man" because being armed is breaking the law for a black man.

You just aren't the free thinker you think you are

[Frondo]

I remember how, in the Obama era, there was a constant drumbeat of "they're coming for your guns," and unsurprisingly it never materialized.

Why should I believe you this time?

[zepto]

For one thing, it’s happening slowly in states like California, and for another it is written into Biden’s platform.

“Put America on the path to ensuring that 100% of firearms sold in America are smart guns.” - a quote you can check today on Biden’s website.

[sillycon-valley]

Well there were pretty heavy gun regulations that were enacted under Obama.

I guess Obama did allow cartels to have guns by continuing Fast & Furious so you're half right.

[chordalkeyboard]

> Well there were pretty heavy gun regulations that were enacted under Obama.

No there weren't.

> I guess Obama did allow cartels to have guns by continuing Fast & Furious so you're half right.

You're half-right because of this one, the Obama administration circumvented federal law to allow known prohibited persons to buy guns and then let them take the guns across the border. over 1200 guns were lost to known organized crime without even getting Mexican gov't permission.

[scruple]

> You can't make them listen

Daryl Davis has certainly proven otherwise, but I freely admit that no one should have to have the sort of patience or dedication to the cause that he's demonstrated in doing so.

> What I have come to find to be the greatest and most effective and successful weapon that we can use, known to man, to combat such adversaries as ignorance, racism, hatred, violence, is also the least expensive weapon, and the one that is the least used by Americans. That weapon is called communication. [0] [1]

[0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daryl_Davis

[1]: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fw0vS0qvYo0&t=34s

[burnte]

Incorrect, you CAN NOT make someone listen, you can only take advantage when they are willing to do so. No one will believe anything they're not willing to. If they open the door, only then does communication work.

[camhart]

You can certainly encourage someone to open the door. I've found that staying calm, humble, and listening first tends to cause others to listen in return.

[gedy]

Honestly, I think you could say the same about both sides of the left/right divide.

[johnchristopher]

> Surely they should be able to beat the right with logical and reasoned arguments?

It's a self-harming myth the left believes in. You don't need to be right to win the argument.

[physicsyogi]

Research into belief perseverance shows that even when people are shown overwhelming evidence contradicting one of their beliefs that they dig in their heels and stick to the belief anyway. [1]

There's also Frank Lunz's observation that many people form opinions based solely on the emotive content of the words (Russell conjugation [2]) they're presented with, regardless of the facts. [3]

[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Belief_perseverance [2]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emotive_conjugation [3]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frank_Luntz#Use_of_language

[throwaway19937]

The woke don't believe in debate[0].

They feel that the deck is rigged against them, debating reinforces the current oppressive system, that all disagreement is illegitimate, and that anyone with power who isn't dismantling the current system is evil.

[0] https://newdiscourses.com/2020/07/woke-wont-debate-you-heres...

[Tokkemon]

That doesn't work with people who didn't get to their beliefs by reason in the first place.

[finder83]

I'm not sure if you're applying that statement in mass or not, but I have seen this reasoning from both sides, straw-manning people into a belief system and calling them irrational because they disagree. I see this much more about the right from the left though.

I think if you sat down with an educated conservative and an open mind you'd have a different point of view.

If your statement was just a blanket statement about people in general, I apologize for mis-categorizing it.

[vzcx]

The left/right dichotomy is not something that is rooted in logic or argumentation but in psychology.

The left is succeeding because it has abandoned argument in favor of the raw pursuit and exercise of power, including their incessant moralizing, which is of course how a priestly caste expresses power.

Why would they go back to debating?

They censor because its playing field they're winning on.

[8note]

Technically the corporations censor because it's profitable to do so.

The profit motive to keep trump on is gone, so he's gone

[tedunangst]

Why not try both approaches? We'll let Pence and Graham explain, with logic and reason, why the Electoral College selected Biden, and then we'll see how people respond.

[hindsightbias]

Assuming you are serious, let’s watch Lindsay walk thru Reagan International today:

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/lindsey-graham-called-trait...

I’m reminded of Qaddafi’s last video. If only he had used logic and reason...

[Frondo]

In case it isn't clear to people who only watch briefly, the people in the video are Trump supporters, yelling at Graham for giving up on perpetuating the "stolen election" lie.

These are people who are nominally on his side, angry that he's no longer carrying water for Trump.

[kmbfjr]

Maybe the right needs to understand that no corporation is required to give them their platform.

It isn’t “censorship” to toss your ass off Twitter for violating their TOS. It is censorship for the government to demand Twitter shut ya down

See the distinction?

[whatthesmack]

> It isn’t “censorship” to toss your ass off Twitter for violating their TOS

This is a misnomer. It's certainly censorship to "toss your ass off Twitter", even if somebody's arbitrary interpretation of a TOS concludes in the finding of a violation.

The concept of free speech doesn't just restrict the government via the First Amendment... it is a tradition and a founding principle (as documented in the Federalist Papers) of the United States of America, as well as a social contract.

I would argue that companies are obligated to abide by the principles of free speech, not from a legal perspective, but from a social perspective, lest they face the consequence of controversy Twitter is currently facing for banning the account of a sitting US President.

Ultimately, silencing people you disagree with is a no-win path to go down.

[jimbob45]

Agreed. If I say, “One equals two”, and you say, “Don’t ever talk to me again, you racist”, then I’m never going to understand the flaws in my thinking and you’re going to wonder why you are unable to convert people to your side.

[ratww]

Nobody is going to call you a racist because you claim that 1=2.

If you want to debate in good faith whether people are too quick to call others racist, maybe you should start the debate by enumerating what kind of speech have sparked those claims? Otherwise you're just being hyperbolic and increasing the political divide.

I get that people are pissed for being called racist, but if they REALLY wanna fix that, the first step is admitting that the other side might be pissed about something too.

[jariel]

"Nobody is going to call you a racist because you claim that 1=2."

? A woman is under arrest for trying to grab what she thought was her phone back from a black kid. It's a national story.

In 2020, getting into an argument with a Black person is 'racist' and 'criminal' if you happen to be wrong.

The woman did 1=2, in that, her actions are wrong.

But because someone is a different colour, she's being destroyed and doxxed on the MSM for the assumption of racism. (Ironically, she could easily pass as a 'person of colour' if she chose to).

This is unfortunately a problem right now in politics and it's perpetuated by the press.

[dragonwriter]

> ? A woman is under arrest for trying to grab what she thought was her phone back from a black kid. It's a national story.

> In 2020, getting into an argument with a Black person is 'racist' and 'criminal' if you happen to be wrong.

Assault isn't a mere argument, and it's a crime regardless of the race of the perpetrators or victim.

> But because someone is a different colour, she's being destroyed and doxxed on the MSM for the assumption of racism.

No, she’s being condemned for the objective fact of assaulting a child.

[ratww]

That's a terrible example. She not only falsely accused, but also assaulted someone she had never seen before.

False accusation and assault should be crimes, period. If she had done the same thing to me you can be damn sure I would want her ass in jail regardless of my skin colour. Her arrest is a good thing. Actions that affect others negatively should have consequences.

[jariel]

You're misunderstanding my point.

Assault is a crime, yes, what she did was wrong - yes, of course - I agree with that.

But what she is being destroyed for is 'racism' - not 'assault and false accusation'.

She was being irrational (1=2) and then because of this, castigated for racism - which is a much more devious charge.

Also - it's shocking that anyone is 'shocked' over such a pedestrian encounter. Have HN readers never been in a fight before? Have folks literally never been in an argument?

This kind of stuff is 'daily' on the streets, at WallMart, etc. It's not very civil obviously, but it's really common for people to get upset over things. We have bouncers at bars for this reason. But we're adults and we move past it.

And - 'false accusation' in this manner is clearly not criminal. The woman had her phone stolen, it's reasonable for her in a hysterical state and just see the first iPhone and possibly think it's hers. Again, not nice at all, but not completely crazy.

The proper response to a hysterical person who had their phone stolen, and who maybe thinks you have it is to 'take the high ground' and calmly demonstrate your ownership. That's all. I don't expect this of a kid, but that could have happend.

That we have a 'national story' with literally Al Sharpton because someone 'grabbed someone's arm' is utterly ridiculous. The kid is 'seeking counselling' because someone 'touched him forcefully'? It's a farce. They've turned this utterly minor incident into a bad SNL parody.

Finally - I'm not implying their couldn't have been racism either, this woman could possibly just as nasty as it gets, it's impossible to tell.

And of course, the whole point of CNN putting this on the news is not that this specific moment is important, but that it could be demonstrative of 'systematic racism in the commons' and they want to make an example out of her - but lacking any possible reference to racial motivation, it's just plain stupid.

In summary - this is an example of certain parts of the media castigating individuals who may be of a certain persuasion (in this case 'White') for no reason, and I can see people getting upset over that.

The riot on capital hill however was not mostly a political movement of general malaise, rather, it was specifically about that certain people feel the election was stolen. It was mostly certainly not stolen, but they believe that because Trump told them so, and that's the primary motivation issue of the violence at this point.

[ratww]

No, it's nowhere near reasonable for her to do what she did. Everyone has a damn iPhone and they have very few models which all look very similar. The kid even had his own phone case which she asked him to remove. It's unreasonable to ask a stranger that just appeared in an elevator to give their phone to you.

And maybe it's a cultural thing but I've never seen a grown woman tackling a 14 year old kid to the ground like this, and if I ever do you can be sure I will call the police. Just because you've seen it often doesn't mean it should be normalised.

And no, she's not being "destroyed" by the racism accusation. But she might be destroyed if she goes to jail and gets a permanent record. And she had it coming. Actions HAVE consequences.

[chordalkeyboard]

> admitting that the other side might be pissed about something too.

I spend most of my mental effort trying to get people on each side to do this, its not easy bro.

[lanstin]

Deplatforming isn’t censorship, it is publishers saying they find said speech to be garbage. I don’t typically stop arguing someone because I have convinced them of my view but because I guess further interaction with them on the topic is a waste of energy. I am confident in all my arguments but a lot of people are too dumb and too emotional to be worth debating. And in the group context, arguing without moderation has mostly devolved into name calling and child porn. It is an experiment often repeated. Some people want a different experience, which seems to mean they want moderation in exchange for a good forum, e.g. this web site.

[tanseydavid]

Isn't deplatforming the term that gets used when certain individuals, invited to speak at a University (for example) get prevented from actually saying anything due to intentional disruption?

Would you consider this to be censorship? Does it make a difference who the speaker is?

[LetsPlayNice]

That is censorship. Prior to this point in time only hate speech, inciteful, vulgar, things were censored. To remove speech from the view of others that is contrary to your own simply because you believe it is "garbage" is censorship. Perhaps the other side believes your speech should be censored. Let's have your comment removed because of your generalization of speech you don't like as "garbage" doesn't conform with the guidelines i just thought of right now and actually, i think your comment is "garbage". How to punish you for your opinion now? 12 hours ban? 24? Deplatformed? Where does it end? THAT is censorship.

[kombucha111]

Stop using someone else's services for your expression. Just imagine you are in Walmart or a Target or your local grocery store. You don't have a right to be there or to engage in any speech or really anything else if the manager wants you removed from private property. If you want to nationalize Twitter and Facebook be my guest but until then the owners of said private property can continue to kick people off of it. I still have yet to see one case where a person's right to free speech were somehow infringed upon.

[blackrock]

Why don’t they build their own platform?

They can raise the money. I assume there are enough software engineers that will sympathize with them and build one.

Was this Parler that they created?

Looks like the app got shut down today. But I’m sure they can still make a website for it, running JavaScript.

You can’t shut the website down, unless you hijack the DNS.

[shiftpgdn]

Dailystormer proves that you /can/ shut down a website through pressure on ISPs.

[simplicitea]

I would put forth that you're not going to get far in this conversation if you can't acknowledge that censorship and government abridgement of free speech are not one and the same.

A company deplatforming an individual is indeed censorship, but is not government abridgement of free speech.

[8note]

You're censoring AOC right now. Why doesn't your post contain one of her quotes? Stop censoring her