idw.community

29 8

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.

By chuckpo7
Actions Follow Post Like

Post a comment Add Source Add Photo

Be part of the movement!

Welcome to the community for those who value evidence and civil discourse - the social network for the fans of the IDW.

Create your free account

29 comments

Feel free to reply to any comment by clicking the "Reply" button.

9

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.

9

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.

BRAVO!!!!

“This speech makes me uncomfortable” equals a tacit request for censorship. You are either for free speech or your not. You can not have “Free speech as long as it doesn’t make me uncomfortable “ All opposing viewpoints should make you think.

@JimGamblainII This is exactly the argument offered by SJW's, thank you for putting it into a 'nut' shell, lol

7

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.

6

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.

iThink Level 7 Apr 14, 2019
6

No, no speeches should be illegal. However, we should call out everything that goes too far on the left just like on the right. That's how free speech work.

shj648 Level 5 Apr 14, 2019
5

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.

datguy Level 3 Apr 14, 2019
5

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.

5

Why are we even labeled i stand on morals values respect self responsibility individual choice why should that mean anything other then me?

3

"STICKS AND STONES WILL BREAK MY BONES BUT WORDS SHALL NEVER HURT ME" ....one of lifes first lessons

Madmax Level 5 Apr 14, 2019

I bet that's not true. How about the words, 'I sentence you to...'? Haha, I'm just messing with you.

3

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.

3

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.

3

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'.

Not throwing the baby out with the bathwater is so important right now. I think a lot of our social problems are because of that very thing. It's also relevant to be bold where being bold is warranted. It's an important part of the conversation. HOWEVER, these aren't simple topics, and they're clouded with extraordinary nuance. A real question is when do you go from being conciliatory to taking a stand. Is EVERY hill worth dying on? And, dogma can be found at the end of that path. It's complicated.

3

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

Admin Level 8 Apr 14, 2019

Thanks for giving some attention to the topic. It hasn't been drawing much interest, but it's sort of a 'who are we' topic--kind of important. I've been surprised more haven't jumped in, but it is really complicated. I'll take a look at your new community guidelines.

By the way, there's part of this conversation happening at [idw.community] --near the bottom.

@admin, okay just looking at the topics, I love it so far.

@admin, the horseshoe is sensible. Why is it a humanist view? Why did you choose not to include religion, or is that a separate horseshoe?

@chuckpo My thesis, and the one I want the IDW to consider more, is that the growing demographic divide between the Religious Right and the non-Religious Left (e.g., people under 30 are MUCH more non-religious than before) has to be bridged with a focus on shared values. Fundamental to good people, regardless of their views of the supernatural, is Humanism. Humanism, here defined as "being good to others" is one of the bedrocks of religion, that is, Religion = Humanism + Rules from the supernatural (codified by it's church/etc). There are MANY non-religious people who are sick of Identity Politics, being called "bad" for being white, etc who want to leave the Left but are afraid of the Religious Right (shall I say "Abortion Bans"?). Frankly, the Right, demonizes non-believers as "if they don't believe in a god, they'll believe in anything" idiots. We need a way to carve out the "good non-religious people" from the indoctrinated Left. AND, these good people will be critical in reaching out to the Far Left as they don't have the Pro-Life hammer. (Thanks for the vent).

Your thesis, have gone to the top of my favorite posts thus far. People making assumptions about other peoples views, on topics that garner interest and are considered worthy in that individuals view of further exploration, is at risk of becoming problematic on this site, in my view. also, which is what I am getting out of it.....but that's just my biased opinion, lol

@Admin Religious Right is the least of your worries. They are like bees, you leave them alone they leave you alone. I am not on the Religious right but co-exist with them, with no issues.

@admin Thats an interesting concept (Humanist Horseshoe). Visually, it implies the "Humanist/Social Extremist" axis has a sliding scale aspect, much like the "Left wing/Right wing" does. The definition of Social Extremists is very helpful in understanding that side; do you have a corresponding definition for the Humanist side?

Also, correct me if I misunderstood, but you seem to regard the "Religious Right" as a specific group. I'm not sure I buy that .... I bet there are religious people scattered all across the Humanist Horseshoe. Not equally distributed, but enough to make the "Religious Right" moniker inaccurate.

It's funny, because recently I was considering the so-called "Left/Right" political spectrum, and I wondered in passing whether a ring/donut might make for a more accurate representation. Did you consider that shape for your thesis?

@jneedler maybe this is why not, lol [images.app.goo.gl]

We should expect civility from people most of the time, but remember that the social contract is broken when certain groups of people are not treated as equal citizens. When that happens, those people have a moral right to use non-civil means to restore their civil liberties. Isn't that what the American Revolution was all about?

@WilyRickWiles yes it is, but not many are ready yet to consider that as the only option and the chaos and blood that must be spent. Many still believe this ship can be righted, which is for many of us why we are here. And it would seem that the only revolution being respresented at the moment, in main stream, is the Anti-American revolution. Which is why, I don't underestimate, nor seek to invalidate any patrotic man's viceral response to these issues. As a matter of fact, if it comes down to it and all talking ends up running its course without satisfactory resolution, there will be only 2 options, submit or fight. I don't plan on submitting and thank God patriots seem more than willing to take the fight to them if necessary. Just hoping it doesn't have to come to that!

@purdyday What is "Americanism" and what does it have to do with being treated as an equal citizen?

@WilyRickWiles I didn't say Americanism, there's one of the SJW 'ism' terms. And as for being treated as an equal citizen, who or what group are you saying are not? Think I already explained my stand, what is not clear is yours.

@purdyday You used "anti-American" as an adjective describing a purported revolutionary political movement. To me that implies an ideology (i.e., an "ism" ) based on some quality of being American, i.e. nativism, rather than one based on universal ideas, like liberalism or republicanism.

Why does it matter what group I am talking about not being treated as equal citizens? They should have the same moral rights regardless of their identity. Would you deny rights from some groups of people?

@Admin i see alot of assuming in your post. How many people on the " far right side of religion" spectrum have you spoken to or vice versa to come come to this conclusion? I myself am excepting of anyone who is the same of me. As with anyone i know.

@WilyRickWiles it is not a purported political movement that seeks to undermine the American Constitution and pervert the Bill of Rights to their own ends. The only Revolution I would compare their actions to is the Russian one. And I deny no one their rights, they have the right to live in any country, as long as they accept that country's laws and respect the culture found there. There are plenty of socialist countries they could choose to live in, if thats what/who we are talking about here, this country happens to be a republic.

@purdyday Last time I checked the Constitution didn't read "you have an obligation to culturally conform," or "it is an act of sedition to break the law," or "you have a right to leave the country," or "you have a right to citizenship in another country." It seems you are the one perverting our founding documents!

@Gerri4321 I grew up in a loving, religious family. I know that the majority of religious people are not imposing their thoughts on others. I am focusing more on how hard-line religious people are seen by those on the Left who are not religious.

@Admin i can see see your view my mother was as i day a bible thumper. But to respond to a post or comment should be self control and self responsibility to some degree. We need or shouls have learned to control our are emotions and respond to thing's at the age of becoming Adults

2

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".

@NativeJo, missed the point. Completely. Hey, at least you didn't just barely miss it. Nobody tattled about anything. I started a 130 comment conversation between adults about a complex social issue, no?

2

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.

Thank you.

LLpea Level 4 Apr 15, 2019

To me, unacceptable is hurting or attacking others, kind of dumping with no concern for anyone else.

@2FollowHim I would like to know that so I can decide for myself. Unless it is an illigel act like inciting violence. From what I understand there is a block button if there as well if that is what one would like to choose. I would rather know what I'm dealing with whether I agree, disagree or find it offensive.
From what i am understanding from your statement, do you mean harrassment?

2

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.

2

Another thought: The Cold War and the language we use to describe political ideologies in the United States has distorted our ability to identify extremism. This often leads to false equivalencies being drawn between those on the non-mainstream left and those on non-mainstream right. Decades of pandering to conservatives have led them to believe that anyone to their left, including liberals, social democrats, and democratic socialists, is extremist, e.g., because the state communists of the 20th century were internationalists and athiests, and such people want to undermine family, tradition, and property (not exactly liberal values). You can see how this feeds antisemitic tropes like "cultural Marxism."

In order to fix this, we need to recognize the liberatory nature of the history of social movements that brought liberal democracy to much of the world and gave it a moral foundation. The revolutions immediately following the Enlightenment liberated the professional class from the aristocracy. Today's social democrats, for example, build on that moral foundation in order to liberate working class people. It is fallacious to equate them to nativists who would restore or reestablish an aristocracy based on race, ethnicity, religion, family history, gender, sexual orientation, culture, or some other form of conformity.

Sure, we should let the far right speak and we should leave them be in their private lives, but it is morally problematic to allow them an unchallenged platform in the public square, because they seek to use our political system to undermine hard-won historical class gains. And we should also remember that no one has a right to freedom of speech in private, decentralized communities.

It is fallacious to presume Conservatives want to reestablish an aristocracy. That is a baseless assertion particularly based on data showing that the top percentages of American wealthy donate Dem according to Politifact and Capitalresearch.org

“Top 300 zip codes nationwide (representing the top 1.4 percent of socio-economic status):
Democrats $71 million
Republicans $47 million
(60 percent Democratic)

Big Four metropolitan areas’ zip codes in top 5 percent by socio-economic status:
Democrats $77 million
Republicans $42 million
(65 percent Democratic)

Big Four central-city zip codes in top 5 percent of socio-economic status:
Democrats $48 million
Republicans $21 million
(70 percent Democratic)

Conclusion

These data are powerful evidence that affluent Americans in the most elite locales contribute significantly more money to Democrats than Republicans.”

You are guilty of a “bare assertion fallacy” and “false equivalence”. You can not assert something to be true just because you say so and it suddenly have any intellectual weight.

And with Hollywood and entertainment being overwhelmingly Liberal (I would cite sources but just try google for an innumerable list to back up this assertion from both sides of the media isle) and now study after study showing media bias Left your assertions have even less relevance.

“Here’s how 20 major media outlets rank on Groseclose and Milyo’s slant scale, with 100 representing the most liberal and zero the most conservative:
ABC Good Morning America 56.1
ABC World News Tonight 61.0
CBS Early Show 66.6
CBS Evening News 73.7
CNN NewsNight with Aaron Brown 56.0
Drudge Report 60.4
Fox News Spec. Rept. w/ Brit Hume 39.7
Los Angeles Times 70.0
NBC Nightly News 61.6
NBC Today Show 64.0
New York Times 73.7
Newshour with Jim Lehrer 55.8
Newsweek 66.3
NPR Morning Edition 66.3
Time Magazine 65.4
U.S. News and World Report 65.8
USA Today 63.4
Wall Street Journal 85.1
Washington Post 66.6
Washington Times. 35.4”

From “Freakonomics.com”

I can cite more but this was the most concise. I can then cite the innumerable attacks of far Left Antifa attack’s to suppression of Conservative AND Liberal speakers by Leftist Universities for their presumed intolerance from the SJW crowd of intellectually weak minded safe spacers as evidence that this Right Wing pandering and/or take over you seem to fear is bull crap. If anything the evidence of the willingness of the Left to resort to violence when challenged seems a bit more likely and their ability to influence America considering they control the top percent of income earners, Hollywood, the music and entertainment industry, academia and media seems a bit more available than the Right.
Your take on the Enlightenment is quite incomplete as pointed out by
Author Ian Davidson in his book “The French Revolution: From Enlightenment to Tyranny”
“However, it is the violence of those years that deals the biggest shocks, as Davidson leads us from one phase to the next.
The revolution that sprung from the Enlightenment quickly produced a hysterical, mob-heavy police state, practising summary justice and vicious persecution against more or less anyone it didn’t like the look of, especially priests. September 1792 was a month of dreadful slaughter, even though the Terror itself was still a year off.”
It wasn’t all a utopian takeover of the ruling elite as much as trading one executioner for another.
Just sayin, neither side is unilaterally anything and your assertion any sort of resurgence of Conservative philosophy or interest in enforcement of a nations sovereign right to decide its own destiny (Brexit) or control of knowing who comes in and out per the laws on the books as being nativist and bigoted is profoundly bigoted presumptions of the intentions of the proponents. One can have national pride, want their country to have borders that control influx for safety, economics, etc AND be accepting of other cultures races and religions. You are guilty of yet another fallacy, a “false dilemma” fallacy, also known as the “black and white” or “false dichotomy” fallacy.
Thanks for the opinion you shared.

@RafaelMspt You're conflating the professional class affluent with uber-wealthy oligarchs and anarcho-communists with liberals.

@RafaelMspt Also, you seem to have assumed that I was referring to ALL nativists and conservatives. I wasn't. I frankly don't care if someone has nativist feelings. I have a problem when those feelings turn to policy or vigilantism based on falsehoods and the social contract is broken for non-conformists.

@WilyRickWiles you are presuming the oligarchs are conservative. As I have demonstrated the money holders and movers are statistically Left although there are some from the Right as well. Money controlling politics from either side is a bad call. I agree that any tribal tendencies turning to violence etc is a bad call from either side. You implied this tendency was Right leaning (false equivalencies of far right and far left) which I disagree with and cited evidence for my disagreement.

@RafaelMspt But you haven't proven that. Your analysis looks at dozens or hundreds of regions with millions of people in them. Why not just look at the dozens or hundreds of people who constitute the oligarchs?

"The Cold War and the language we use to describe political ideologies in the United States has distorted our ability to identify extremism."

Agreed

"Decades of pandering to conservatives have led them to believe that anyone to their left, including liberals, social democrats, and democratic socialists, is extremist, e.g."

Now this is an interesting statement because 1) pandering implies appeasement, or giving in to an undesirable person or behavior, and i fail to see where the communist state you describe has given in anywhere since the mid 60s, and 2) being that liberals ARE 'conservatives' under that modern banner, to appease communist's i might add, that statement implies that liberals are considered extreme left of themselves.

"...internationalists and athiests, and such people want to undermine family, tradition, and property (not exactly liberal values)."

On the contrary. God, family, tradition and private property are EXACTLY liberal values.

"Sure, we should let the far right speak and we should leave them be in their private lives, but it is morally problematic to allow them an unchallenged platform in the public square, because they seek to use our political system to undermine hard-won historical class gains. And we should also remember that no one has a right to freedom of speech in private, decentralized communities."

I believe what is morally problematic is this decades long pandering, in the public square, to anything that undermines traditional American values (liberalism), with the aim to transition America from a liberal country, where speech is protected save violating the rule of law, to a communist state, where speech is dictated by the state and any dissention squashed by whatever means necessary.

@Tommy6915

Now this is an interesting statement because 1) pandering implies appeasement, or giving in to an undesirable person or behavior, and i fail to see where the communist state you describe has given in anywhere since the mid 60s, and 2) being that liberals ARE 'conservatives' under that modern banner, to appease communist's i might add, that statement implies that liberals are considered extreme left of themselves.

I'm not following this at all. I'm using dictionary definitions, not "modern-day" definitions, if that helps.

On the contrary. God, family, tradition and private property are EXACTLY liberal values.

No, those are the historical values of feudal religious nations. Liberal values are liberty and equality before the law.

@WilyRickWiles

"I'm not following this at all."

Lol, reading it again, I can see the confusion. Basically i'm saying that the communist state we're trying to hold at bay today, got here by not pandering to liberals, but rather by overwhelming them in every institution to the extent that they're now demonized and shouted down, if not censored or regulated against altogether, in the public square. And for clarification, Liberals and Conservatives are the same thing.

"Liberal values are liberty and equality before the law."

Precisely, as in the the Declaration, acknowledged by the Constitution, and protected by the Bill of Rights. Individual, natural rights, such as life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, according to natural law that applies equally, are Liberal values.

@Tommy6915

Lol, reading it again, I can see the confusion. Basically i'm saying that the communist state we're trying to hold at bay today, got here by not pandering to liberals, but rather by overwhelming them in every institution to the extent that they're now demonized and shouted down, if not censored or regulated against altogether, in the public square. And for clarification, Liberals and Conservatives are the same thing.

Got it. We might have to agree to disagree on this. I see liberals as your typical corporate centrists and conservatives as people who want to restore aristocratic privileges (so politicians with a pre-Constitutional bent--like a Tory). As I see it, most leaders of both parties until the mid-20th century were liberals, with the exception of FDR who was a social democrat. Then the conservative movement (funded by oligarchs) began in response to the desegregation of religious schools and began to infect the Dixiecrats and then the Republican Party. After Eisenhower, Republican Presidents began to pander more and more to conservatives. After a power realignment surrounding the McGovern candidacy, labor and the left began a slow death and only in response to Trump has it shown signs of reanimating. I see no signs of the communism you mention, in fact that was kind of my point--Cold War, McCarthyist rhetoric and pandering to conservatives has led many conservatives to conflate anyone on the left with Stalinists and Maoists.

Wow! You get 3 gold stars and I'll toss you a coupla coins for knowing the facts and presenting them so beautifully @RafaelMspt

@REParker I'm not going to get into the nuances of the 2nd Amendment here, suffice it to say that only a conservative could look at its expansion in recent decades, with gun regulations struck down in cities throughout the county, open carry laws in most states, and concealed carry reciprocity on the march, and consider conservative gun enthusiasts to be in an worsening state of victimization by the pro-regulation liberals.

@Mudpumper That is a caricature.

@WilyRickWiles gotcha.

Leaving religion as a separate topic alone, i'll just say that in my opinion, what it boils down to in America, and i believe globally, is the battle between 2 basic ideologies which are individualism and collectivism, in all their shapes and sizes. We started under the principle of the former, and given way to those of the latter.

Proper identification of each seems oversimplistic to some, but the lack of it has enabled all of the intentional relativism, and subsequent confusion, necessary for collectivism to thrive. A clear understanding of these two competing ideologies should help people see more clearly where they stand and avoid supporting the opposite no matter how it's dressed up & disguised.

@Tommy6915 Where you see individualism vs. collectivism, I see liberalism vs. reactionism. Same as it ever was. There has always been a legitimate element of collectivism in America in the form of small-r republicanism.

@WilyRickWiles as you said, we will have to agree to disagree.

@REParker Tell that to the gun grabber George Washington!

2

Unpopular opinion: Regardless of their intentions, most of these IDW figures are serving as a gateway to extremist right online media and communities, which ultimately makes it easier for the far right billionaires who bankroll some of them to pander to voters in order to get them to do their political bidding. Of course ideas that start as pandering have a history of becoming real (e.g., the religious right, nativism, Brexit, etc.), but if you're a fracking billionaire like one of the Wilks brothers, maybe you're OK with that.

Yeah, not popular with me. I disagree.

@chuckpo Surely we can agree that when speech is funded by a small group of powerful individuals in order to advance concealed political interests, and is propagated through centralized media platforms, exploiting network effects, that it becomes propaganda and does not qualify as the good faith civil debate that this platform purportedly aims to advance.

@WilyRickWiles, let me go back and clarify. I think the left has done more to give voice to the extreme right than IDW-heroes. The KKK for example has been largely silent for awhile. Are you SURE that's a bear you won't to go poking at? Especially for some shallow political hyperbole? That's a very bad idea. IDW does nothing of the kind, unless you're saying advocating free speech vaguely provides for the space. Maybe, that's a problem. Maybe by always talking broadly and not being specific about what we're talking about provides the extreme breath. That's something to think about.

I may be missing something in your argument. I'm not sure where the money part is going. Are you saying it's orchestrated? But, then I still don't see the connection to IDW. And, what are you defining as far right? It sounds like you're describing a Soros theory for the right. I guess I need some clarification too.

@chuckpo So you broadly classify the left as extremist not on the basis of their ideas but because they engage and possibly trigger the far right, which is a dangerous thing to do? Might the resurgence of the far right have more to do with powerful interests and politicians like Trump who are stirring them up and pandering to them for political gain? Isn't it more dangerous and certainly not in keeping with freedom of speech to shut down a group of people on the left who have done the most thinking about how to combat the right?

The IDW gets much of its funding from the Koch Brothers (oil refining), Wilks Brothers (fracking), Mercers (hedge fund), Uihleins (shipping and business supplies), Mellons/Scaifes (banking, oil, and resources), Bradleys (factory automation), DeVoses/Princes (MLM, auto parts, and mercenary contracting), Marcuses (home improvement) and other likeminded billionaries. These are families that have long been involved in the conservative and right-wing libertarian movements in this country, some from their inception in the mid-20th century, and whose interests primarily lie in hoarding wealth, resources, and power for a new aristocracy. The IDW's coordinated efforts on platforms like YouTube, Facebook, and college campuses work to exploit the disaffected and uninformed and shuttle them to increasingly extreme content.

Yes many figures on the left get funding from billionaires like Soros, Steyer, Omidyar, and the Ford Foundation, but there is a difference. Their efforts are of lesser magnitude than those of the right and they are less aligned with their business interests and more aligned with universal, civil society values. That's where the false equivalencies come into play that I mentioned in my other comment on this page. Yes, both right-wing billionaires and left-wing billionaires use their wealth to influence politics. But right-wing billionaires fund political movements that are antithetical to the liberal and republican values the US was founded on whereas left-wing billionaires fund efforts that support those values or attempt to expand liberty.

We must recognize the ideological imbalances in the funding of political speech because middle-of-the-road billionaires like the Buffets and Gateses do not offer similar support for mainstream political speech. Rather they either focus on limited corporate interests or have strange obsessions like overpopulation and teacher evaluation that dovetail with the more extreme interests of the right.

@WilyRickWiles

So you broadly classify the left as extremist not on the basis of their ideas but because they engage and possibly trigger the far right, which is a dangerous thing to do?

Wait, where did you see that?

@chuckpo I may have read too much into your "opposition to the drifting left" and your statement that the "left has done more to give voice to the extreme right."

@WilyRickWiles

Might the resurgence of the far right have more to do with powerful interests and politicians like Trump who are stirring them up and pandering to them for political gain? Isn't it more dangerous and certainly not in keeping with freedom of speech to shut down a group of people on the left who have done the most thinking about how to combat the right?

I don't agree that Trump represents the far right--not at all. To me, that's partisan propaganda. And, I don't take such things lightly. I investigate them. I'm really confused about the second comment. Which group is being shut down? What do you mean by 'most thinking about how to combat the right?' Is that like the Russia McCarthyism strategy?

I think we may be very far apart in the way we see reality, and that's going to create problems in our communication. A little self-disclosure. I consider myself to be an Independent. There are some things I'm pretty far left on. But, there are some things I stand with the right on. I stand strongly against the modern left now, because I find it sorely corrosive and often ill-considered. I don't like the team affiliation charade at all, but I can no longer explain or identity with the left.

The IDW gets much of its funding from the Koch Brothers (oil refining), Wilks Brothers (fracking), Mercers (hedge fund), Uihleins (shipping and business supplies), Mellons/Scaifes (banking, oil, and resources), Bradleys (factory automation), DeVoses/Princes (MLM, auto parts, and mercenary contracting), Marcuses (home improvement) and other likeminded billionaries. These are families that have long been involved in the conservative and right-wing libertarian movements in this country, some from their inception in the mid-20th century, and whose interests primarily lie in hoarding wealth, resources, and power for a new aristocracy. The IDW's coordinated efforts on platforms like YouTube, Facebook, and college campuses work to exploit the disaffected and uninformed and shuttle them to increasingly extreme content.

Do you have anything looking remotely like evidence for this? Where are you getting this 'information. These seems like opposite world in Sponge Bob. Really.

Yeah, the rest of what you wrote hits me the same way. I'm going to need some kind of substantiation and acknowledgement the other side from you sees it exactly opposite. And, if you can, please explain why that is.

@chuckpo

I don't agree that Trump represents the far right--not at all. To me, that's partisan propaganda. And, I don't take such things lightly. I investigate them. I'm really confused about the second comment. Which group is being shut down? What do you mean by 'most thinking about how to combat the right?' Is that like the Russia McCarthyism strategy?

I'll concede that it's arguable whether he represents the far right. But he certainly panders to them.

Again, with the second comment, I may have been reading too much into your intent to shut down speech on the left seeing as though your original post posited an equivalency between extremes on the left and the right, and a line beyond which speech became unacceptable. And to be clear, I was not arguing for any reciprocal restrictions on speech.

I draw many of my ideas from the left but try very hard to think independently and not allow myself to be swayed by political caricatures. And ultimately I desire to form a personal politics that is constructive and can interface with the majority of people in the real world (those people generally being socially split between left and right and economically to the left).

Do you have anything looking remotely like evidence for this? Where are you getting this 'information. These seems like opposite world in Sponge Bob. Really.

It would probably take a while to go through the funding of all of the IDW figures and the history of the conservative movement, so for now let's just look at how the IDW campus tours are funded. Can we agree that many of them are funded by Turning Point USA? Here is an article about Turning Point USA's donors: [ibtimes.com] . If you don't trust that source, much of the names came from the public tax records filed by donor foundations (TPUSA itself isn't required to disclose its donors). If you go to this page ([projects.propublica.org] and then download the 2014 990 form for the Uihlein Family Foundation, for example, you can see that they gave $50,000 that year to TPUSA. There are other more partisan websites that make this sort of thing easier to track down and aggregate. Let me know if you want more substantiation.

@WilyRickWiles, I don't know. Links didn't seem to provide much--oh, first one didn't work. This seems like sketchy associations drawn by you or by someone you're depending on for information. I'll certainly challenge that. Looking around a little myself, it's not obvious there is a financier behind the members typically considered the intellectual dark web--especially to the point of demanding some type of convergence of ideas. YAF contributes, and I see them being fairly critical and distancing themselves from TPUSA. I'm sorry, but the accusation seems really weak.

I think a lot of people--probably a lot of people here would challenge your assertion that money on the right is more clandestine than money on the left. On the surface, it sure doesn't seem supportable by any kind of evidence. But, the fact you'd whitewash the left's contributions while demonizing the right's contributions is suspect at best. Come on, how likely is that? I respect you're trying to gain some perspective from the middle, but it looks like from here you're missing that mark. I'm sorry. I'm not trying to be confrontational, but there just has to be a lot more evidence (from sources that aren't themselves compromised).

I'm an independent standing with the right against the left because I've felt like the left has become corrupt with dishonesty, and I see the left as being the biggest cause of the current division. Something changed, culminating with that Harry Reid job on Mitt Romney (who I can't stand). Harry laughed about his lie and brazenly justified his lie because, 'it worked'. He said this defiantly right in front of the camera. That, to me, opened the floodgate that exposed widespread corruption. I also think some are corrupt on the right. I think it's obvious who is. But, the corruption on the left seems to me to be institutional. It's systemic. And, the appearance is it goes very far past lying.

I find your comments on the IDW to be flat out wrong and paranoid. That doesn't mean those people won't be compromised at some point. It definitely could happen. But, I think these guys and their messages are legitimate and necessary to push back on some really dangerous stances the left has taken. So, there it is. I'm not expecting you to agree with me either. It's funny to me how two people can essentially use the same information available and come to completely different conclusions. But, that does seem to be the way it is. Reasonable people disagree.

@chuckpo I fixed the first link. As for the second, here's a direct link to the 990: [projects.propublica.org]

@chuckpo I'm happy with how I've made my points so I won't beat a dead horse. I'll leave you to do your own research and maybe I'll get back to laying out more evidence at some point. It's just time consuming because while I've long had my eyes open to much of the evidence from a variety of sources, it takes time to reconstruct it in a format that those aligned with the right would see as credible even though it's based largely on public information. Such are partisan bubbles.

@WilyRickWiles, fair enough. Hey, we disagree A LOT, and we're civil, and I'm not going to dread talking to you again. Thank you! There's hope for us all, haha.

I believe in psychology, they call this 'projecting'.

@chuckpo FWIW here's YAF's funding. You can take it from YAF itself [supporters.yaf.org] or from partisan watchdog CMD [sourcewatch.org] . I've already mentioned most of their funders.

You really don't see the left bankrolling purported intellectuals in the same way. It suggests that they are bad faith actors.

@WilyRickWiles, yeah, I really don't love the way you frame your thinking. I've already said I think it's biased. And, you completely ignore how much is funded through crowd-sourcing. For the record, IDW's Sam Harris is liberal, Dave Rubin, if you take him at his word in the need to cast him other. Are liberals who are critical of liberals conservative to you? I don't see very many intellectuals on the left to be honest. There may be an interesting reason for that. Hopefully, you're not trying to include every PhD in academia, because content experts certainly don't earn the label intellectual just by being a PhD. That ship sailed long ago. You treat left donors and right donors COMPLETELY differently. You lose me right there. I think it's biased.

@chuckpo You call me biased but you're ignoring a pretty large plank in your own eye. Yes there are plenty of left intellectuals--you just don't see them unless you seek them out because they aren't paid to do PR for the Democrats like the IDW does for conservative institutions. And of course I grant more credibility to historians, other academics, and journalists. I know from lived experience not to believe the McCarthyist conspiracy theories that the right has spread since Harry Bradley, Fred Koch, Robert Welch, and others founded the John Birch Society in 1958.

I may not have been clear enough about the distinction that I draw between left and right donors, so here it is in a nutshell: the right wing causes supported by Koch-aligned donors are reactionary--i.e. pre-liberal and not compatible with the Constitution. This frame should be familiar with you if you are familiar with Harris and many of the IDW's obsession with Islam. The left is generally on a spectrum between liberal and more liberatory politics. Therefore you can't equate left and right donors. They both influence politics--and I'd love to get money out of politics--but only the left does so within a legitimate political framework. Moreover, the left has nothing close to the constellation of think tanks and other institutions that seek to influence students (e.g., TPUSA), the judiciary (e.g., The Federalist Society), and legislation (e.g., ALEC and State Policy Network). I'm happy to engage their actual views and whether some of them are actually liberal, but I think that it is easier to understand their views when you look at their funding. I'm not asking you to love how I frame my thinking, but it would be nice if you would engage it.

@WilyRickWiles, me thinking you have bias in your thinking can just be a statement about me. Obviously, if you believe what you say, you're going to think nearly everything I say is biased. I think that's fair. Nature of the beast. On the money, you're saying conservatives bad, leftists not bad. I tend to see bad on both sides equally concerning funding, and I see that not all of the money comes in the form of a corrupted system. So, there it is. I'll choose my thinking over yours. Is that a surprise? Do you. I'm not going to change your mind. But, I don't agree with your arguments.

@WilyRickWiles, and I don't think I'm confused about your position. You've explained yourself. We are just going to disagree pretty strongly. What you write doesn't fit with my own experience and knowledge--AT ALL. Haha, what are we going to do? Just is what it is. smile001.gif

@chuckpo Fair enough. If we're going to assess radicalism equally between the two poles of our politics (which to be clear I reject), I'd be interested to know what donors on the left are funding political causes nearly as radical as the nativism on the right. It certainly ain't Soros.

@WilyRickWiles, disagree.

There's dirty funding all over the left. And, you know what? I see the exact same arguments you're making made by the right. I mean, you've seen them, right? How do you ignore that? Doesn't that seem strange to you that both sides are making the same accusations--complete with data and citations and all of that? IN MY OPINION, it's sort of impossible to be LOCKED INTO your position without bias. It seems strange to me. There are a trillion arguments just like yours AGAINST your side. Just google. Seems reasonable that either both sides are corrupt or both sides are being biased in their accusations. Seems less likely that your side is the real truth--or their side is the real truth.

Standing in room calling someone a liar seems a bit silly in a room full of liars.

Why is this happening? To me, it's the team rivalry. You're a Sox fan. I'm a Yankees fan. That's all that's needed. You're a douchebag, your team sucks, and the only way you win is to cheat. I think THAT'S what's going on. NOBODY cares about a truth that points to something other than the other side is evil. I think that mindset is hopelessly biased, but you know what? I've never talked a single person out of that position--even if I list tons of statistics or references--or actual video footage that in my view literally proves their belief is wrong.

@chuckpo The difference is my argument can be substantiated with public documents and the right's arguments are utter fantasy! Tommy6915 had the roles backward, but he was right about projection. Fantasy aside, the right really has a tough time distinguishing the left from corporate, mainstream liberals. If you think that I watch CNN and MSNBC all day, you're way off. I am plenty critical of "my side" but I'm not going to take some fabrication that I find in Breitbart, The Daily Caller, or WorldNetDaily as gospel.

@WilyRickWiles, hahaha, of course not. But, you will take leftist sources as gospel. Like I've said, I've provided actual video against the Trump is a liar trope, and had those on the left flat out reject it. Reject what was clearly in the video. What about the gun debate? How is it the left's statistics are always spot on objective measures, but the right's statistics are made-up, cherry-picked fantasy? I'm sorry, Rick. Like I said, I'm not sure we have anywhere to go with this conversation. I've said my piece. You'll reject it, and you'll probably reject it without considering it. And, there we sit.

@chuckpo

you will take leftist sources as gospel

Try me.

I've provided actual video against the Trump is a liar trope, and had those on the left flat out reject it. Reject what was clearly in the video. What about the gun debate? How is it the left's statistics are always spot on objective measures, but the right's statistics are made-up, cherry-picked fantasy?

It ain't me.

You'll reject it, and you'll probably reject it without considering it.

I think you get the point.

2

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.

True, but what you can end up doing is discouraging membership. If a site's a crapshow, visitors are much more likely to leave and not even give it a chance. So, if someone new comes and sees all of this extreme content, they're gone, man. Ghost. They were never here. The community starts choking for life, and then declining. This is not a simple problem.

@chuckpo I can understand that as well. I wouldn't be completely against the removal/time out of someone if there was a clear and fair clear system or tribunal.

I was speaking as a general rule as an individual but I know some will intentionally target to create incendiary content with the intent to push the bounds of acceptable.

@chuckpo a squeaky wheel shouldn’t discourage the thoughtful but it is a concern (see the perceptions around Gab) but as Tim Pool has so clearly argued, if you begin to censor speech (aside from calls to violence, doxing or crime etc) you force into the shadows this community where tribes are convinced they need to go. Whites convinced they are oppressed so much that the only place to go are places that say it is ok to be you but then funnel to white supremacy. As said in another post, sunlight is the best disinfectant. Let the bloviators spew, they will be easily and quickly seen for who they are and what they are and ignored into irrelevance. Once you start down the censorship road you end up like FB and YouTube and Twitter which is why this forum started in the first place. If those platforms hadn’t become infected with ideological censorship and bias the IDW wouldn’t have had enough support to even come into existence.IMHO

1

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 ?

Haha, actually @LesMahagow, I've met one on this site.

But, as a rule, no. I don't run into many on the far right. Those on the left define any Christian as the far right. That's not the case really, though some 'Christians' are.

I actually made the point on this thread I'd rather not have anybody poking at that bear (far right). We should let that one sleep.

@Guido_Provolone A few years ago the German Parliament security scrutiny committee discovered that the largest far right group in Germany was financed by money given by spys sent to infiltrate the group.
The deputy leader was a government plant. They were so heavily infiltrated that it couldn't survive without that (government) spy cash.
They shut down some of the activities of the Secret Service infiltrators and the group collapsed into debt and infighting. ??

Government ! You just can not make up the levels of stupidity they employ

1

As one person said where is the link to the video? Actually the far left is far more dangerous these days. Anybody who is conservative is characterised as a far right extremist by the leftist clowns.

The far left is far more dangerous only because they outnumber far right by at least 1,000 to 1. The far left also has very effective support from MSNBC, CNN, ABC, NBC, CBS, NY Times, Washington Post, Facebook, YouTube, etc. As far as I know there are no high profile organizations who pander to or support the far right. Fox News certainly doesn't. Contrary to what most leftists want to believe Fox News is far and away more "balanced" in their presentation and content than any of the ones I listed above. If the far right had that kind of support it would be every bit as dangerous as is the far left. Extremism of any kind is just evil. very very evil.

1

Have you a link to this video? I see no evidence to work with re: your claim.

I posted it somewhere down there, but it's not needed. The conversation isn't about forming a judgment about an incident. It's more about what happens if extremism gets a foothold on the site? Most people seem to advocate letting it exist. It will be interesting to watch.

But, we all just come here. This site is part of the site owners' identities. My point is it's not as simple as many make it out to be, because they're not thinking about the same things the owners have to think about.

1

God, I love this conversation. Great contributions!

1

Flow chart the thing. 1)should some level (any level) of censorship be imposed of should the site self censor (by membership condemnation). If no then announce and your done. If yes then 2) what to censor. Ah, the fun part. Pornography? Direct threats of physical harm? Doxing? Vulgar language? Vulgar views or descriptions? Obviously a “reasonable” list can go on for a while. A discussion of censorship must contain a discussion of who/what we are trying to protect - the reasonable sensitivities of the membership? Potential legal liability? A place for discussion free from influences so disruptive that the members abandon the site? There must also be a discussion of process. A moderator censors something (or fails to). What redress does the aggrieved have? What about notice to the violator and membership? Explanation of censorship rational? Membership involvement in any of the above? How much (or how little) discretion should a moderator have. (Not a real suggestion - I’m way to new at this sort of thing) - but how about group devoted to administrating whatever is worked out on this issue? A complaint is made / referred to the group / short discussion followed by binding judgement/majority vote/moderator as final appeal. What about penalties? Repeat offenders? This problem couldn’t have landed in more fertile soil. If the IDW.community can’t solve this one we are lazy and not acting responsibly.

Demere Level 6 Apr 14, 2019

I just want to throw in here that administering a community is VERY hard. You can't win. Most everyone agrees there has to be some lines, but figuring out where those lines go is very difficult. The admins will be punished regardless of which direction they go. That's just experience.

0

Other than comments that incite or encourage violence against someone, speech on this platform should be unfettered. Whatever someone's position on a topic, he / she must be prepared to defend the position. That is how product discussions occur.

Write Comment
You can include a link to this post in your posts and comments by including the text 'q:30554'.
IDW.community does not evaluate or guarantee the accuracy of any content read full disclaimer.
  • IDW.community is a community for fans of the Intellectual Dark Web! We're non-commercial, fan-operated, and independent of any public figure.