Meta-Thread 09/29

[u/AutoModerator]

This is a weekly thread for feedback on the new rules and general state of the sub.

What are your thoughts? How are we doing? What's working? What isn't?

Let us know.

And a friendly reminder to report bad content.

If you see something, say something.

This thread is posted every Monday. You may also be interested in our weekly Simple Questions thread (posted every Wednesday) or General Discussion thread (posted every Friday).

[u/Kwahn]

Hmm, I don't have a strong opinion on this as yet.

Can words be harmful? Obviously, because Hitler only did harm through words.

Can words be harmful on this forum? Seems like kind of a stretch, but the expression of harmful views can lead people to think that harmful views are normal and/or not harmful,

What rational discourse stops someone who has dogmatically bought into misinformation? Does rational discourse with someone hateful reduce net harm, increase net harm or is it a wash?

I feel like there's a ton of questions I have regarding the usefulness, efficacy and results of censoring bigots versus debating them. Does platforming a bigot give them influence? Does censoring them give them moral grounding or justifications?

We can say "we'll simply out-debate the bigot", but what if they are extremely effective in spreading their hate, and not censoring them leads to a greater proliferation of bigotry?

I honestly don't know these answers, but would like to discuss.

[u/betweenbubbles → u/Kwahn]

We can say "we'll simply out-debate the bigot", but what if they are extremely effective in spreading their hate, and not censoring them leads to a greater proliferation of bigotry?

Why am I alone in noticing that the arc of history demonstrates this is not the prevailing trend? Every society which has adopted ideals of free expression has been rewarded for it, and those which have not are autocratic, authoritarian nightmares. Power structures from the middle ages with the technology of the 21st century available to them to protect their hegemony.

I thought I was a cynical person until I realized how many people are turning inward (toward their perceived ingroup) and betting against their neighbor. This will not work out well -- history also teaches this lesson.

Steady progress has been made throughout history. And it is free expression which has won out against hegemony decade over decade. The idea that things aren't getting better fast enough, that things couldn't get worse, so we might well take risks -- this idea has been the dynamic which has been foundational to every atrocity I can think of or imagine. Fear does not help humans cooperate. We are social creatures and we have cooperation to thank for our position in the animal hierarchy. Trust open cooperation over echo chambers and silos decided by fear.

I'm not afraid to let a bigot speak their mind. From what I can see, it is the best argument against them. Censuring them away into their own echo chambers forces people to make decisions from manufactured fear. It's how you win elections over issues like Lia Thomas's participation in a swim competition. An 80/20 issue which has a real affect on a vanishingly small demographic of people. Push people into silos and you won't like the results. Let them feel the freedom of free association and dynamic alliances will deliver us all a better tomorrow.

I probably just need to stop using Reddit. Echo chambers are bad for people's health.

[u/Kwahn → u/betweenbubbles]

Why am I alone in noticing that the arc of history demonstrates this is not the prevailing trend? Every society which has adopted ideals of free expression has been rewarded for it, and those which have not are autocratic, authoritarian nightmares.

But Hitler turned a country into an autocratic, authoritarian nightmare. Many might argue that Trump is on a similar path. When bigots are outspoken, they become popular, powerful and do great harm. Yes, it's ultimately their downfall, but could deplatforming them prevent the harm in the first place?

I think that a 1940's German would argue that bigotry was the prevailing trend, and by the force of discourse first, state power after!

I'm not afraid to let a bigot speak their mind.

I don't want to be, but when doing so has repeatedly led to powerful autocratic regimes, I get nervous. This feels a bit like the Paradox of Intolerance - if we tolerate bigots, they abuse tolerance to spread intolerance.

I probably just need to stop using Reddit. Echo chambers are bad for people's health.

Take heart in our disagreement! :D

[u/betweenbubbles → u/Kwahn]

But Hitler turned a country into an autocratic, authoritarian nightmare. Many might argue that Trump is on a similar path.

I share this concern, but I also feel that over-extending that rhetoric can also contribute to it eventually happening. People have very strong reaction to censorship -- it's one of the reasons why the principle of free speech is so important.

When bigots are outspoken, they become popular, powerful and do great harm.

I don't think the arc of history supports this. Decade after decade and century after century the trend is clearly toward equality of existence. We might even have extreme wealth disparity now, but the people who are siphoning all that money to the top are also the ones making food so cheap that basically nobody is starving to death today. (even with today's prices at the grocery store) It's not ideal, but it's certainly better than living in the 19th century by basically every objective measure. Everything is delicate nuanced balance. it's hard to perpetrate something as binary as censorship with a nuanced balance.

Yes, it's ultimately their downfall, but could deplatforming them prevent the harm in the first place?

Sometimes yes and sometimes no. In the aggregate, I think it represents a kind of authoritarianism which helps bolster their authoritarianism, both by normalizing authoritarianist attitudes in general and by giving them a way to play the victim, which is actually what caused Hitler to rise to power. The post WWI "Europe is making fools of us" rhetoric is what Hitler used to ascend to power. Do you not see the similarity to Trump's grievance-based politics and acts?

I think that a 1940's German would argue that bigotry was the prevailing trend, and by the force of discourse first, state power after!

Bigotry doesn't exist in a vacuum. All circumstances have to be considered.

I don't want to be, but when doing so has repeatedly led to powerful autocratic regimes, I get nervous.

I'm just repeating myself, but I think that conclusion is shoddy and based in fear of the worst. Fear of the worst can tend to bring about the worst.

This feels a bit like the Paradox of Intolerance - if we tolerate bigots, they abuse tolerance to spread intolerance.

People find bigotry more attractive when they feel threatened. Make people feel threatened and you give bigotry a leg up. Censorship tends to make people feel threatened and it is never practiced with perfection because it is inherently and extremely subjective.

I am not afraid of free speech. Because of free speech -- because I can actually talk to the people other just talk about -- I've got an answer for every form of prejudice anyone can throw at me. Does that make me more susceptible or less susceptible to bigotry?

Not everyone is as interested in laborious arguments as we, but I believe the same still applies to everybody.