[amirkdv]

> Such obviously false statements might be treated as jokes, or at worst as evidence of insanity, but they are not likely to make anyone mad. The statements that make people mad are the ones they worry might be believed.

There's some truth to this that's worth pausing on.

But it's a fallacy (probably with a fancy name) to say "it made you mad therefore you worry it's true".

A statement could be false yet incite anger because it's demonstrably harmful.

[escapedmoose]

Also the statements that people “worry might be believed” may not intersect with the statements that could be judged as plausible by an intelligent, rational person. There are a loooooot of dumb people out there, with uncomfortable levels of individual and/or collective power. When that cohort falls for something that smarter people see as blatantly false, it still can have nasty consequences. We should be angry at anyone who deliberately attempts to make them fall for it.

[strogonoff]

Anger is a manifestation of fear, which in turn stems from insecurity. If you are confident, there is nothing to be afraid of and becoming irate about.

This makes it a useful measure sometimes. If a thing you say causes anger, it may or may not be true—but it definitely indicates your counterpart’s sensitivity to and bias against it being true; the chance of it being false is thus elevated.

[msla]

Were I to spread lies about horrible things the Jews were doing, Jewish people around me would become angry and, yes, fearful, depending on my ability to make or find platforms, not because they'd be afraid I was telling the truth, but because, historically, those lies have been early warning signs for violence against Jews, including state violence.

Making it more personal: Would you get angry were someone to falsely accuse you of a crime? Would it frighten you? Would those emotions come from a lack of confidence in the truth, or a lack of confidence in your support system and, ultimately, the justice system to separate fact from fiction?

[philwelch]

Empirically, many people seem to be willing to believe deranged conspiracy theories about Jews. That doesn’t mean those theories are correct or credible in any objective sense, but the risk is exactly that people might believe or take seriously those claims.

The thing is, if you really want to prevent antisemitic violence, censorship is not going to help. If someone claims that the Jews rule the world, you can argue, “so why did the Jews end up on the wrong side of the Shoah” and if they claim the Shoah didn’t happen, you bring out all the documentary evidence that it did happen. If censorship is on the table, the anti-Semite can—as he does in many countries already—censor all of the documentary evidence that demonstrates the barbarity of his position.

[strogonoff]

Hate speech: I have encountered that at times, have you? Anger is pointless, because that is what they want. Allegation of a crime: probably not going to anger me if I did not commit it, but may make me afraid if it is made by law enforcement.

Fear is natural if hate has the potential to spill into action, but anger is a signature behavior of a cornered creature—it will not lend credence to any of your counter statements and is useful in a very, very limited range of scenarios. Keep your cool.

[msla]

Hot anger is pointless, except as a social signal, cool anger drives action and is very powerful.

[strogonoff]

Now I am not sure where you are going.

To circle back to the topic at hand, any anger stems from fear/insecurity (which may or may not be warranted); when it happens unexpectedly when discussing a random topic, like in TFA—no one wishes death to anyone, and yet someone gets mad—then it is a useful indicator.

[oehpr]

Exactly. This whole essay seems to provide no way to distinguish between moral fashion and actual morality.

Is he trying to say that there's nothing moral under the sun? That there are no evil ideas? Do I even need to put forward examples?!

And providing no framework or tools to distinguish between the two and just telling everyone "go for it" is dangerous. I'm mad at the idea. And no. I don't think it's because it might be true.

[noxer]

Mostly all of the "morality" people live by are fashion. Sure you can craft some example of "pure evil" if you want to but they hardly have any relevance in people every day life. For all the popular "morally right" things to do or not to do we just craft a set of exceptions that are in fashion.

"You should tell the truth" yes, probably you should but should you always? what if you can prevent trouble if you lie? what if you can save someone form getting hurts by lying? what if you omit something etc. etc.

"You should not take a life" except if self-defense, defense of someone else, if the person poses an imminent danger to you or someone else, the person is military personnel form a different country, the person is unborn etc. etc.

[amirkdv]

A lot of morality is of course fashion (and "relative", if you want).

But failure to articulate universal moral rules concisely, doesn't mean there's no concensus.

Circumstances and relevant context can be very complicated and laborious to describe, but there are still many cases where overwhelming majority of people would agree on what's right and what's wrong.

[noxer]

But morality claims to define right and wrong based on logic not consensus. Consensus changes and is also often confused with "acceptance" like for example a majority of people accepts some kind of legal abortions that doesn't mean they think it is morally right to do it.

[runevault]

In a world of modern disinformation, we can no longer presume mad vs non-mad statements based upon our own worldview. Different people have been told different things throughout their lives, and if nothing from another PoV pierces that bubble, then it simply seems normal to them. And that can go for any person, not just "the other side" be it R vs D or any other two groups.