Where is the line between acceptable and unacceptable speech on IDW?
Saw a video on a post that seemed really far right to me. Remember, I'm an Independent who stands in opposition to the drifting left. But, I'm probably not going to fit very well with the far right either. I'm not talking about normal religious types or anything like that. The KKK is too far out there for me. I'm not going to run from one divisive group to another divisive group. So, how has the site and its members dealt with extremism? What is extremism? Judging content is so problematic, but is there content before you get to yelling fire or encouraging violence that is also unacceptable? Is the intellectual dark web accepting of all speech?
I'm curious what members think about this. Thoughts on where the line is? I admit I'm a bit uncomfortable.
If you happen to see something that offends you, comment on it. Say why you think it's offensive. That's what the site is for. As the saying goes, "Sunlight is the vest disinfectant." I have a real problem with getting offended and saying someone else needs to fix what offends you.
FYI - I have had s discussion with a white supremacist on here. So what? I told him what i thought of his ideas and why. It wasn't insulting but., it was a long way from flattering. He argued just like a leftist and called me names. Neither his names or his ideas injured me in the slightest. I also learned that style of argument wasn't confined to the left. Up till then I thought it was.
Many topics ... and many peoples’ takes on those topics ... are going to make some people “uncomfortable”
Making people “uncomfortable” usually means making them step out of, Think, outside of their “Comfort Zone.
I view making people “uncomfortable” to be a valuable tool.
If one is made uncomfortable by something they can simply decline to engage.
No-one FORCES anyone to read or respond to anything. If they choose to pick up the pen ... or keyboard ... it is Their Own Fault if they find themselves being “made” uncomfortable.
By allowing more speech we have the ability to combat crap speech such as that spewing from groups such as the KKK and groups such as Antifa. That is how I handle speech. Open the Overton Window wide and let's have it out over ideas. More speech is the answer.
My way of dealing w/ "extreme" content is to simply move past it by NOT responding in any way to it. I don't even click a "dislike" emoji on it. There is nothing quite as effective as ignoring an obnoxious person. I figure if enough smart folks ignore them (don't feed the monkeys) they will eventually go away and if they don't drop off the site it's still of little or no consequence to me. I don't need a nanny to protect me from bad words. I'm a big boy and I can deal with such things on my own.
I love this question and I think it is a very fair one to ask. The way I understand the question is: is free speech such a fundamental value that one should be free to discuss and say whatever they want to say, no matter how depraved, detrimental, or divisive it may appear be? If this IDW, is going to be a so-called “intellectual gathering place”, then I am, perhaps, fine with any such speech on this site.
That being said, however, I think it is absolutely incumbent upon those thinking persons among us to not simply tolerate hateful speech, or even perceived hateful speech without a well thought out and reasoned response. I like to think that the original idea behind freedom of speech was to enable the marginalized or unfavored person to say something contrary to those in power or the ones that they favored without a tyrannical response from the ones they questioned. If you see something hateful, or even perceived hateful, call it out and ask the question in the public forum for the purpose of the speech. If this place is to be intellectually based, then reasoned dialogue should be the norm.
I think speech should be open and free because not all things are always as they appear at first. Maybe through open dialogue both sides can expand their understanding to better themselves and their respective communities. In order for that to happen everyone needs to be able to speak and someone needs to listen.
That’s my partial response to the question should speech be free at all costs, but I still am not sure about what to do about free speech that mobilizes a mob of ideologically bound persons that ultimately have decided that something or someone is their enemy. That type of thinking seems to inevitably lead to bloodshed, which most should be very wary of wading in to.
I am for the least amount of restrictions possible. Anything that would call directly for harm to a person physically and maybe some ad hominems that don't deal with the issue would obviously be off limits. In order for me to make a fair judgment, I'd really have to see the post that you are talking about.
I don't want to see this site become today's version of the German social media Stasi.
In life, for as long as i can remember, you can say whatever you want or dare, but there are consequences. They could range anywhere from an immediate punch in the face, to a slow social death from friends and community dissing you, and not associating with you. It might even show up as a Subpoena or writ to appear in court to be tested for slander (speaking falsehood), or for uttering threats of violence to property or person.
If proven guilty, you can be sued substantially depending on the level of provable damage sustained by the offended party. If not proven, will be thrown out of court. Deal with it.
Freedom of speech is open to anything you are willing to go to court for. It's regulated by truth itself. Deal with it. And it works just fine like that!
Stop being afraid of other or difficult views, you are never going to be rid of crazy...especially if you ignore it or run away from it. The only place you are ever going to "fit" is your personal space, about 5' around you; everything else is going to be a messy fight...prepare yourself.
I haven’t seen anything too extreme or offensive here yet. I am a huge supporter of freedom of speech and feel that when the sunshine hits the really bad stuff, many will point it out. We are the market and the market will speak when appropriate. Until then we all have to assume that feathers will be ruffled, feelings will be hurt and people will be offended....but then again, there is no right to not be offended, upset or triggered.
This post offers much, thanks for presenting it this way, it is a valuable one. Everyone should try to keep in mind, commenting and sharing actual factual news, is not the same as supporting an ideology. If anyone is concerned enough about someone having the power to incite negative views, why not engage them directly? Or as someone else has mentioned, simply decline to engage at all. My opinion is also, 'you don't throw the baby out with the bathwater'. Expecting to be able to straddle both sides of a view may be wise counseling practice, but some issues need to be recognized and dealt with in a focused view. What is that other saying, 'if you can't stand the heat, get out of the kitchen'.
Thanks for you post! I'll be following the conversation here as I'm working on a more clear policy of conduct. I want to allow as many views as possible, even some of the angry one provided that we have a quorum of honest, civil people to discuss them.
Here's my first draft... [idw.community]
Also the image is something I'm calling the "Humanist Horseshoe" where there is a spectrum of views that go from civil to not (I will refrain from saying "asshole" ). I have rework the graphic as I want clarify the point off effective humanist extremists... I mean, in order
I'm not sure what specifically you saw and perceived as very far right but if you are an over sensitive narc who can't understand that noone is forcing you to read things you may not agree with, thus triggering an urge to tattletale on the content provider, then go hang out on "now this, or democracy now, or the root".
The way I see it is, I would prefer to know what people are thinking even when it is uncomfortable. As long is there is no call to violence or something. Even then I would like to know. That way I know who and what I am dealing with. I can then choose because I have knowledge and ergo freedom and the power to decide : I can call them out or block to avoid or debate or plant a seed of wisdom, etc.
I have a friend who (with whom I argue with often as we come from different idealogical stand points) decades before we met , was involved with the skinhead movement for a short time as a teen. 2 things happened with this person. 1. They don't like indoctrination of any kind. Which the movement was. 2. This person met an elder gentleman of colour who changed this person's mind, just by being themselves. My friend learned something important about the value of the content of someone's character being more important... to losely quote Dr King Jr. A Seed of change was planted. My friend abandoned that ideology and stands by the quote from MLK to this day.
My friend still sometimes says some truly offensive things but i understand it is to be provocative for the sake of it. We argue about it. Sometimes it makes me uncomfortable. But that is part of what my friend likes to do. Both of us have mentally stretched ourselves because we are so different.
University was once like this. To stretch the knowledge base and critical thinking. To learn.
In high school I recall in debate club taking and arguing for the opposing position.
Would this not help to create and practice empathy as well? To understand someone your opposed to will also help one to better understand their own position and self? Beyond debate, war or conflict? It helps in life. "To know thy enemy, know thyself. " (The Art of War; Sun Tzu) Just thoughts.
Peterson put it aptly when he asks the questions, "Who gets to define harm?" & "What level of harm is tolerable or even necessary to give occasion for a meaningful discourse?" Whatever wouldn't be grounds for a lawsuit or breaks any current laws (in the US / Not Canada). Other than that, I accept that freedom is messy and even dangerous at times- but its better than the alternative of tyranny.
Personally I think policing acceptable speech is a community based thing dictated by willing interaction.
I operate in this mindset. If I find a post I find too extreme I ignore it. If I notice it's a pattern of behavior I ignore that person.
I will interact with people who have a bad framing of their arguement if I believe they may have a valid arguement past the nonsense.
Only to the extent of pointing out they could have a persuasive arguement if it wasn't predicated on prejudice.
I don't know how to reverse extremism without some measure of contact. I don't believe the method of kicking extremist into smaller more extreme groups is necessarily productive in combating it.
OK ... Let us start. The KKK ? how many members, how active, how relevant ?
Most far right or neo-nazi sites are monitored or as in Germany run by government agencies.
Israel produces alot of racist and antisemitism sites ... it's at war and needs sympathy.
You deal with this by blocking the site. Very simple.
I joined Gab. The left produces false flag Nazi/racist sites to discredit that site.
They have a prominent Block function.
If blocked they don't reappear and don't get the clicks. Sorted
There are extreme lunatics on the Far Right.
But few and far between.
Have you ever met one ?