This is just a few people explaining how they de-radicalized. Now imagine the opposite, someone with some slightly bad opinion suddenly finds themselves shut out of the main platforms because of hate speech rules. They now become more radicalized. Due to the number of people constantly being suspended/banned I think there is a greater chance that these people will become radicalized, than someone will realize they have a bad opinion because they got suspended/banned.
I'm reminded of Daryl Davis, and the way he de-radicalized KKK members. He did it by talking to them, engaging them in speech. It feels like hate speech censoring could actually lead to more radicalization as people feel persecuted and become even more radical than if you had let them talk. It's a hard problem because you can get radicalization if you allow people to create their own echo chambers of hate. How do you balance trying to avoid creating these kinds of echo chambers, versus creating radicals by pushing them to other sites where there are no restrictions?
>Now imagine the opposite, someone with some slightly bad opinion suddenly finds themselves shut out of the main platforms because of hate speech rules. They now become more radicalized.
This is a bad argument; it is a fact, for example, that child pornography by being censored creates a taboo around it. It's also true that some people will seek it out because of its taboo nature - something it would not be (or only to a lesser extent) if it weren't illegal. The fact that people will download and masturbate to child porn because it is illegal is not a good argument against child porn laws.
We (justifiably, I think) do not allow speech for the purposes of terrorist recruitment. The fact that someone is mistakenly banned for terrorist recruitment and later becomes radicalized is not a good argument to allow terrorist recruitment.
The argument is fundamentally self-defeating; it presupposes that free speech is so good and basic that it overrides all other rights. However, it also supposes that people in general lack sufficient ability to introspect after being censored - people are thought of here not as rational beings to use their rights of speech to engage in democratic deliberation, but as animals who when poked by a stick become enraged.
>He did it by talking to them, engaging them in speech.
Why should it be society's burden to deradicalize people? Does this work at scale? What of all the people who heard Davis or his ideas but were not persuaded? Is the number of people he failed to convince known?
Finally, what of the people who, according to your theory, only become more 'radicalized' when they encounter the position that their views are wrong or harmful?
There's just as good of a chance that one hundred Daryl Davis' trying to deradicalize people will actually cause radicals to dig in their heels. Maybe these hypothetical Davis' don't have a welcoming tone. Maybe the radical doesn't want to listen to a hypothetical Davis because of his race. Maybe the radical actually publicises the exchange and uses it as a megaphone to gish-gallop with 'radical' ideas. Maybe the radical convinces a hypothetical Davis that actually the radical and hateful ideas are correct. Doesn't honest and open dialogue, after all, permit both sending and receiving?
I feel as though the Daryl Davis approach has a lot more risk and a lot less going for it empirically than you suppose.
> Why should it be society's burden to deradicalize people?
Because your neighbor's problem eventually becomes your problem. Cases in point: Saudi Arabia helps 9/11 terrorists; US meddling in South American politics promoting fascists, death squads, and the War on Drugs fueling powerful gangs and cartels; Western-caused climate change refugees fleeing Africa, the Middle East, and South America; Dec 8, 1947.
> Does this work at scale?
No. It doesn't matter if something is difficult or not if it is a moral duty to counter. "I do not fight fascists because I will win. I fight fascists because they are fascists." ― Chris Hedges." It is a moral imperative for anyone and everyone in a potential capacity of mentorship to dispel and debunk faulty ideas that neighborhood youth get involved with. No one can be an island onto themselves and local community is essential (although all-but-dissolved in most modern city life). (Boston Marathon Bombers)
"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it" - The Friends of Voltaire by Beatrice Hall
When you start editorializing an individual's speech rather than debating them, it's a slippery-slope down the road to censorship and fascism. There are some costs to having an open society, like the risks of being open. You might hear some idea you might not like, or find absolutely repugnant. Having venues that can debate and debunk bad ideas with better better ones is preferable to preaching to the choir. Someone can't influence or the change minds of people they refuse to talk or listen to. Society will eventually come to a head if there become separate, hermetically-sealed ideological camps persist for much longer; this is a very dangerous phenomenon for social stability.
Yes yes, and these arguments were all well and good when we were young and innocent on the internet.
But those arguments rested on so many assumption that the internet has disproved.
“When you editorialize instead of debate...” for example - There are ways to configure sentences that they will parasitically thrive on debate, without actually being debated. Like a virus that targets the immune system.
This happens all the time - cranks, nazis, racists of all stripes will want to start a discussion on “IQ” or some seemingly innocent facet so that they can appear to be a victim and radicalize minds which don’t have an anti virus pre installed.
I forget the original saying, but agitators deign to argue with you. They don’t really think your ideas or rebuttals are material, instead you are simply a backdrop for them to perform their recruitment drives.
>Because your neighbor's problem eventually becomes your problem.
This is an argument for doing something, not necessarily for putting a burden on individuals to counter extremist and murderous ideology - especially those who are most likely to be targeted by it. It may be a moral imperative, but moral imperatives really are sensetive to a variety of individual circumstances to exercise, because they only work by way of moral obligations and moral responsibilities - both of which are only parts of rational decision making.
Someone who has had a strong past of experiencing racism may balk at the idea of starting a dialogue with an extremist whose entire ideology is founded on the view that he is not even worthy of consideration as a civilized person.
I firmly believe that most people lack the capacity of mentorship, or if they have it, then they are not terribly experienced with it. The fact that professional mentors take so much time and effort to nurture someone who they know is already receptive and still fail should be a testament to a significantly worse ability in the common person to do that, especially when, as I mentioned, communication is a two way street. What makes you think the mentors will be any less susceptible to radicalization than the people they are mentoring?
The biggest problem is that most people do not have the requisite knowledge to be such mentors. They may know racism is wrong, but maybe they can't explain it sufficiently well. They may appeal to humanity, but it may not get far to do so with someone whose ideology for the past two decades has been the fundamental inhumanity of the person they're talking to. Needless to say, all this completely leaves out the fact that I really don't think most extremists are keeping an open mind in the first place.
>When you start editorializing an individual's speech rather than debating them, it's a slippery-slope down the road to censorship and fascism.
Slippery slopes need to be justified, not merely supposed. The mechanism needs to be explained and the risk made clear. For example, the mechanism that one form of speech (like hate speech, defined stringently) can be banned. It is not at all obvious that this leads to other ideas being banned; the legislature, for instance, need not and generally does not work on the basis of precedent. Superior courts can override precedent. Similarly, the fact that a hate speech law can be abused is not a good argument; plenty of laws can be abused, including, say, anti-terrorism laws. This does not mean that anti-terrorism laws should be done away with.
>Having venues that can debate and debunk bad ideas with better better ones is preferable to preaching to the choir.
This assumes the debating and debunking works and wins out over rhetoric. We're not dealing with pure ideas, we're dealing with two forms of expression of those ideas: firstly, hate speech which is a generally non-argumentative and derogatory expression of the idea designed to be hurtful; secondly, speeches, texts, videos, music, etc. which combines rhetoric and argumentation. Debate does nothing for the first category. It may do something for the latter category, but it's unclear if it does so at the scale or effectiveness to satisfy the moral obligation you pointed out.
>Someone can't influence or the change minds of people they refuse to talk or listen to.
The point of the laws discussed is not to change peoples' minds, it's to hobble the spread of their ideas.
Let's not confuse or conflate the bounds of in-person speech, with printed or online content. These differ slightly.
> Similarly, the fact that a hate speech law can be abused is not a good argument; plenty of laws can be abused, including, say, anti-terrorism laws.
False equivalency, red herring, and two wrongs don't make a right. Laws can be written across a continuum of vagueness and precision. Laws must be continually updated and oversight assured so that policy underpinning is implemented in good faith and appropriately. Crafting particular words for a law alone is insufficient to accomplish the presupposed objectives. The real world doesn't work like that.
> What makes you think the mentors will be any less susceptible to radicalization than the people they are mentoring?
Did your professor allow this kind of crap to fly?
> This is an argument for doing something
You proved my point for me. Tragedy of the Commons makes everyone's responsibility no one's responsibility. No one else is likely to do something just because you talk about it but don't walk the walk. "Be the change you seek" because waiting for Godot is a terrible idea. Take ownership yourself and do it.
> Debate does nothing for the first category.
I suggest taking another look at history [0]; ethos, pathos, and logos; and, finally, hate deradicalizers, often former believers.
0: Rhetoric was a popular form of live entertainment for centuries, if not more. "The Most Famous Man in America: The Biography of Henry Ward Beecher" - Derby Applegate (2006) re: touring abolitionism speech performer, and his sister's book likely being one of the final proverbial straws that broke the camel's back regarding the Civil War.
Saudi Arabia, regardless of many other concerns in the Kingdom, has an entire department in the MoI that has processed thousands of now former Jihadi's. [1]
Cartoons of Muhammed plus the Quran is better than burning and banning the Quran, because that reinforces an adversarial and underground dynamic rather than dialogue. Who decides which ideas are "good" or "bad?" You? Verizon? Dept of Safe Ideas? Censorship/hobbling powers never end well. "Absolute power..."
I think I'm done here because you've stopped listening and went off into the weeds rather than be honest.
>Laws can be written across a continuum of vagueness and precision. Laws must be continually updated and oversight assured so that policy underpinning is implemented in good faith and appropriately. Crafting particular words for a law alone is insufficient to accomplish the presupposed objectives. The real world doesn't work like that.
I very much agree; the law should be evidence-based and continuously under review to ensure scientific and philosophical argumentation gets a look-in to the results.
>"Be the change you seek" because waiting for Godot is a terrible idea. Take ownership yourself and do it.
I still agree that indvidual action can work well, but this says nothing of whether individual action is sufficient to accomplish the aims of the moral obligation you outlined.
>Saudi Arabia, regardless of many other concerns in the Kingdom, has an entire department in the MoI that has processed thousands of now former Jihadi's.
This is fantastic, but it does not prove the supremacy of individual action - it only proves that state counter-speech can work in certain instances. That's admirable in itself, and it can work very well. My only qualm is that it is unclear whether it should be the whole solution or only part of it. Naturally, I prefer legislation that does not restrict freedom - to restrict it as little as possible to accomplish the aims therein. However, this says nothing about the cases that fail, and the cases that fester. My point about mentorship has gone unaddressed - you proposed a system where people could individually take it upon themselves to persuade others, as an alternative to the state. I think it can work, but I'm still skeptical about the scale it can work at. You mentioned moral obligations, and you also said that difficulty is irrelevant to whether we should try our best to fulfill them. It seems here that freedom of speech and the moral course of action may be in conflict, doesn't it?
>Cartoons of Muhammed plus the Quran is better than burning and banning the Quran, because that reinforces an adversarial and underground dynamic rather than dialogue.
I agree! But I neither suggested banning the Quran nor did I even suggest banning Das Kapital - what I suggested was a restriction on hate speech. I think this preserves the thought/speech dichotomy, something which even liberals should be convinced of.
>Who decides which ideas are "good" or "bad?" You? Verizon? Dept of Safe Ideas?
It's not about goodness and badness, it's about harm. I'm not imposing some moralistic framework on law here (although that has been gaining steam recently). Rather, I am proposing that even if we abide by the harm principle and we keep up with modern neuroscience and philosophy, we end up with harm from certain speech. The legislature, through debate and consideration of the peer-reviewed scientific conclusions, will decide how the law should be crafted. The law will also be read over through special debate and involve the consultation of various interest groups, from the people it's supposed to represent to the legal scholars who are experts on the topic. I realize this is an 'ideal', but it's how I'd like it to be done in order to accept it. I'm sure that if you agreed with me, you'd have it done the same way.
>Censorship/hobbling powers never end well.
They do; an upstream commenter mentioned post-WWII Germany, and arguably threats, libel, child pornography, and assault work just fine. We have censorship, we don't have unlimited freedom of speech on any country on earth. The question is not whether to draw the line, but where to draw the line - something I argue should be considered through scientific and political debate.
Science, as colloquially understood, seeks to empirically validate truth - true things can cause “harm.” So which is it? Are you looking for censorship of untrue ideas as discovered through open scientific inquiry, or, are you looking to censor ideas which cause harm. You can’t have both.
Put that aside, first principles, how can you hold a robust scientific debate on a topic that’s
censored? The historical and common sense evidence strongly indicates it’s not possible.
The fact that speech can be distinguished from action does not in itself provide a reason to prioritize speech over action. Further, speech and action share a number of commonalities that there are good arguments made (by Susan Brison and Frederick Schauer, for instance) that the categorical difference between them rests on a philosophical error.
When one censors 'speech' they are really censoring thought. We just call it speech because that's the highest-bandwidth and lowest-latency mechanism us humans have to exchange our ideas. Eumemics and eugenics are two sides of the same coin, and I am very suspicious of people practicing either of them.
>When one censors 'speech' they are really censoring thought.
This is incorrect; we would surely say that a hypothetical person who cannot communicate at all, only absorb information, has thoughts, even if he has no speech. Further, thoughts are abstract, quite literally figments of the imagination. Speech is concrete as something we do with thought.
Just because someone is prohibited from, say, shouting that Jews should be rounded up and shot in a Jewish neighborhood it does not mean he cannot think it or even express the idea in other contexts. Speech is expressive in that it takes an abstract idea and makes it concrete through the action of speaking. Only certain forms of the expression of that idea, in certain contexts, would be prohibited.
A baseball player will get in trouble for swinging his bat on a busy street. He may still swing it at the stadium without any trouble. The act of swinging the bat hasn't been prohibited, only its specific 'expression', provided by its context as determined by time and place and who is around him. The player has freedom of bat-swinging. We have freedom of thought.
The idea that speech is not action is a relic of the doctrine of mind-body dualism, in which the effect of words on a listener is so substantially different that they are deemed lesser harms, because they affect the mind, not the body. Advances in neuroscience and philosophy have put dualism in hot water[0]. The law in several non-speech related areas has for a long time realized dualism is false, such as with the issue of the insanity defence and voluntary manslaughter.
Pithy, but I say it after being a big fan of using him as an example.
Persuasion has moved from the cottage industry of human interaction to industrialized consent manufacturing.
Fox and cable television were the steam engine, social media is the industrial revolution. Human scale approaches such as Daryl’s are akin to using buckets to drain a sea.
You are talking about squeezing one side of a balloon without noticing that the other end is getting bigger.
The KKK is effectively a non-entity today in modern society, sure. That's partly because "they" became Proud Boys, Patriot Front, etc. etc. As with the broader societal trends of transitioning away from traditional pre-digital power structures and groups, a rich ecosystem of new white nationalist groups have sprung up in the digital age to feed off the same hate that the KKK used to organize around.
> EDIT: the rain of downvotes is telling as usual.
You suggest that people subject to social stigma and censure should "maybe ask [themselves] some questions". Do you think the reaction you are receiving should cause you to question your own position?
No, of course not. Why should I be disposed to take an accusation of hate speech at face value? I certainly don't have any hate in my heart for people. If I say something, it's because I think it is (or at least may be) true. Whether that might potentially in some abstract way cause others to feel hate is frankly not my business.
Now, if I'm wrong about some point of fact, I am more than willing to be corrected. And that's all it should take.
If someone feels the need to go beyond merely arguing my claim is false and use the accusation of hate speech, I'm going to seriously doubt that person is intellectually serious or acting in good faith.
Nobody is accusing you of hate speech. The downvotes are accusing you of being wrong, though. You might question your position, not because it might be hateful, but because it might be wrong.
Give me some good reasons for believing that a "slightly bad opinion" and "hate speech" can be easily confused and I'll be ready to rethink my position.
Questioning our own positions is the opposite of bigotry, after all.
Your claim was that even the simple accusation of "hate speech" should be taken at face value and be cause for introspection, seemingly regardless of the circumstances.
Now here you are asking for reasons before you reevaluate your own position when we claim you are in error. Do you not see the hypocrisy?
You are welcome to expect arguments before you change your mind. You can be "innocent until proven guilty". That's all the rest of us ask. Telling others to assume fault when you yourself do not is a rather poor way to argue.
The opinion of an independent adjudicator like the platform you're on with hopefully unbiased hate speech rules should be considered evidence in a way that the bad faith arguments of the person you're arguing with is not.
That is, I should not necessarily take your accusation of hate speech at face value, because you've proven to be willing to try and use it to win an argument. But if dang said that I was doing something that broke the rules, I would be more introspective. This is, yes, technically an argument from authority, but so is basically everything in the world of social dynamics.
So the burden of proof for you and the burden of proof for hacker news as a platform may be different, but that has nothing to do with me vs. you.
So I'll repeat what the other user said: if dang@ came along and asked you to stop engaging in hateful rhetoric, would you take a moment to introspect on that, or would you first reaction be to argue and demand proof?
Mine would be to try and figure out what he was referring to, and then probably to do less of it. And indeed, when chastised by him, that's more or less what I've done.
>> If you feel a platform is overzealous in enforcing hate speech rules, don't use it. Or maybe ask yourself some questions before moving out.
>> EDIT: the rain of downvotes is telling as usual.
> You suggest that people subject to social stigma and censure should "maybe ask [themselves] some questions". Do you think the reaction you are receiving should cause you to question your own position?
That's twisting what he said. What he actually said is that people who are bothered by "hate speech rules" should "maybe ask [themselves] some questions." He didn't say anything about downvotes should lead to similar self-questioning.
You are making a distinction without a difference.
As the original article itself pointed out, "hate speech" is an amorphous term that can refer to any socially unacceptable speech. Actual "hate speech rules" and "downvotes" are merely different mechanisms for enforcing social stigma and censure.
The real question is at what point should a person reevaluate their opinions in light of social pressure. The commenter I was responding to seems to think it should only happen when the opinions in question are ones he disagrees with.
EDIT: additionally, complaining about downvotes is also against the rules of this site. For someone to do that while extending no charity to those who break other content moderation policies is...interesting.
> You are making a distinction without a difference.
> As the original article itself pointed out, "hate speech" is an amorphous term that can refer to any socially unacceptable speech. Actual "hate speech rules" and "downvotes" are merely different mechanisms for enforcing social stigma and censure.
No, you're blurring things to the point of meaninglessness. For instance, "first post" competitions would clearly be unacceptable speech here, yet I doubt anyone in good faith would actually call such posts hate speech.
Also, downvotes are an opaque mechanism. Did your post get downvoted because you said something widely regarded as offensive, are this guy [1], or because you just had too many typos? You can speculate, but that's not very good basis for self reflection. However, if you're mad you can't post speech that (for instance) directly attacks some race as being inferior [2], you have a pretty clear thing to reflect on.
> For instance, "first post" competitions would clearly be unacceptable speech here, yet I doubt anyone in good faith would actually call such posts hate speech.
No, but if you think "hate speech" is a clear and definite term with no room for abuse you are deluding yourself.
> Also, downvotes are an opaque mechanism.
The person I responded to clearly knew why he was being downvoted. He presented an unsophisticated and (on this forum) unpopular view of hate speech rules.
> If you're mad you can't post speech that (for instance) directly attacks some race as being inferior [2], you have a pretty clear thing to reflect on.
Insisting that people who are critical of hate speech rules are white supremacists is not a constructive take.
> No, but if you think "hate speech" is a clear and definite term with no room for abuse you are deluding yourself.
That's actually not an uncommon situation for a term, such is human language. Most terms have fairly established meanings with a bit of fuzziness around the edges. That doesn't mean they're meaningless, arbitrary, or not useful.
> The person I responded to clearly knew why he was being downvoted. He presented an unsophisticated and (on this forum) unpopular view of hate speech rules.
It was certainly unpopular with some, but I wouldn't say it was unsophisticated.
> Insisting that people who are critical of hate speech rules are white supremacists is not a constructive take.
I made it clear that was an example, not a general characterization of any group. You'll also notice I didn't specify any particular race, so you're basically putting words in my mouth.
Those are several points that I would love to argue with you about, but I'm afraid we would be drifting from the main point.
The other commenter was insisting others take certain accusations or forms of disapproval at face value, yet was hypocritically quite defensive when challenged and down-voted.
The idea that "hate speech" accusations form some sort of special category where they should be taken at face value is absurd.
It was a rhetorical attempt to bully someone into submission that failed because most people here recognized it for what it was. And then he whined about people not approving.
Today Dr. Seuss is hate speech. Tomorrow Dr. Seuss apologia will be hate speech. Even from the perspective that this is progress, it’s very fast progress. Today’s white supremacists are last week’s liberals who didn’t update their opinions fast enough.
Dr Seuss isn't hate speech, there are a few racist caricatures in a few of his books, that the owners have stopped printing.
A few private platforms have stopped selling those books -- not all of them, neither all platforms nor books.
You can still find those books, you just won't be able to buy official reprints from the copyright holder.
I am not sure where you'll draw the line if you insist that copyright holders continue to issue reprints or if you insist that private platforms continue to offer trade in things they don't want on their platforms.
Would that rule apply to ebay, but not a physical retail store where space is at a premium and people have to make choices about what not to sell every day? And would that rule compel ebay to sell nazi memorabilia or pre-American civil war slave memorabilia (which, afaik, they do not sell)?
The Seuss stuff is something I really can't wrap my head around, because what is it people really want? Just the estate to be compelled to keep printing and selling them, that ebay be compelled to keep allowing them to be sold?
Or some broader rule where any copyright holder of some (contemporarily) objectionable material be compelled to keep offering it, and every store be compelled to keep trading in it? All of those put limits on people's freedoms to choose in ways that make me uncomfortable.
Racist caricatures are right down the middle of any definition of hate speech I’ve seen.
The production of an instant moral consensus - so that everyone, all at once, decides freely that it would be incompatible with their values to do what they were doing yesterday - is an exercise of a kind of power. “It’s just private entities doing what they want to do” doesn’t mitigate that.
Why would you barge into someone else's community and police their use of terminology? Why would you think anyone cares about what you have to say on that topic?
At best it's an annoying distraction; at worst it makes people feel like shit for needing to constantly justify their existence.
In general I agree. This was the same problem when social justice advocates (particularly those who were not core contributors) were trying to force "codes of conduct" on open source communities that felt no need for them.
But in this case, my understanding is that the distinction of sex and gender is essential to the concept of transgender in the first place. Is insisting (perhaps somewhat pedantically) on using those terms in a consistent fashion really an offense?
Now, they are free to exclude people for whatever reason they want. Sub-reddits are not supposed to be all things to all people. But the statement does not strike me as obviously offensive to trans people (I've even seen them make the same distinction).
> my understanding is that the distinction of sex and gender is essential to the concept of transgender in the first place.
That... depends? I mean, consider that "male" and "female" (as buckets people are assigned to at birth) do a pretty bad job of describing actual biology in many cases, often with harmful results. And that's before we even get to the topic of gender identity! You can be a trans woman while you still have a penis, because being trans isn't just about having surgery. (Consider that the term "transsexual" has fallen out of favor, in part because "transgender" covers the idea that your birth-assigned sex or biological features don't always accurately describe your identity.)
Anyway, consider what the parent originally said:
> > I was banned from r/asktransgender for telling a girl in a relationship with a pre-transition MtF person that it doesn’t make sense to call herself a lesbian (since sexual orientation is based on sex and not gender)
That's.. just not correct at all. Who was the parent to decide that "lesbian" = "biological female in relationship with biological female"? If someone identifies as female and is in a relationship with someone who identifies as female, they are perfectly justified in calling themselves lesbians, regardless of what reproductive parts or hormonal levels they have. Disagreeing with that is just meaningless, because this is how the word "lesbian" is used in the real world, and fighting against reality is generally not a winning move.
> Is insisting (perhaps somewhat pedantically) on using those terms in a consistent fashion really an offense?
If you're someone who's tired of outsiders telling you how you're supposed to describe yourself, yes, it probably is an offense. It's even worse when said outsider doesn't know what they're talking about and is insisting upon something that's incorrect.
> Now, they are free to exclude people for whatever reason they want.
I don't know why the parent got banned, of course. It could have been because they offended people, or it could have simply been because they were being an annoying pedantic (incorrect!) language lawyer who was sucking the life out of discussions. Either, in my mind, is a valid reason for a ban.
> But the statement does not strike me as obviously offensive to trans people (I've even seen them make the same distinction)
"Trans people" is not a monolithic block of people all with the same attitudes and tolerances. One trans person may not be bothered by it (though I would hope they'd be bothered by the parent's statement, since it's incorrect), but another may be. That's just life. And regardless, it doesn't matter if it strikes you or me as offensive to trans people, unless we're trans people. (I'm not, and I assume based on how you've framed this discussion that you aren't either.) It only matters if actual trans people are offended, and perhaps some number of them were. And if you are a trans person, I would hope that you'd agree that you probably don't speak for all trans people.
Like the idea that a homosexual can be attracted to an opposite sexed person, the term “genital preference”, that a gender non-conforming boy might actually be a girl, etc.
Essentially, the idea that a person could be attracted to the body of the sex they aren’t attracted to is the same idea behind conversion therapy. Anecdotally, I’ve spent way too much time trying to change my “genital preference” for me to think it’s true.
These ideas don’t point towards any animosity towards homosexuals, just a theory about how they might be attracted to trans people. Not really comparable to conversion therapy — no one is forcing you to date a trans man.
I am not sure why you think this discussion about homosexuals in general and the possibility that they would attracted to trans men impacts you personally. The idea doesn’t hurt you. It’s just an idea.
It has nothing to do with your sexual preferences. It's because you went onto a message board for trans people to complain about trans people to other trans people.
Then when they refused to put up with your bullshit you tried to spin it into a grand censorship narrative, rather than bog-standard asshole behavior.
> I'm reminded of Daryl Davis, and the way he de-radicalized KKK members. He did it by talking to them, engaging them in speech.
1. Daryl Davis is literally the only person ever mentioned in this context. If you don't have another example, this doesn't even qualify as an anecdote anymore.
2. Over the course of multiple decades Davis has, via intense 1:1 work and personal connection and at great risk to himself, deradicalized something like 4 dozen people. Gab alone had something like 400k accounts.
You are basically saying there is no power in integration and that the only effort for reform here should be negative consequences which generally isn't viewed as a liberal perspective on how to reintegrate people into society.
> You are basically saying there is no power in integration and that the only effort for reform here should be negative consequences
This an extremely uncharitable reading of my comments. I said a structural problem needs a structural solution, not a personal one. To invoke Chisholm as a counter-argument is offensive.
I think that what Chisholm did and what Davis did are in the same category. Personal outreach. You said Davis was the only example so I gave you others.
I don't think racism is structural problem Its a personal problem solved by individuals. The legacy of racism and its former codification may be structural and addressed in a structural way but they are fundamental different.
> I don't think racism is structural problem... The legacy of racism and its former codification may be structural and addressed in a structural way but they are fundamental different.
>How do you balance trying to avoid creating these kinds of echo chambers, versus creating radicals by pushing them to other sites where there are no restrictions?
By aggressively removing it to limit how many people are exposed, and ban those who continue to share it despite being warned.
I'm reminded of Daryl Davis, and the way he de-radicalized KKK members. He did it by talking to them, engaging them in speech. It feels like hate speech censoring could actually lead to more radicalization as people feel persecuted and become even more radical than if you had let them talk. It's a hard problem because you can get radicalization if you allow people to create their own echo chambers of hate. How do you balance trying to avoid creating these kinds of echo chambers, versus creating radicals by pushing them to other sites where there are no restrictions?