It’s funny how the elites use this ploy to stamp out any differences from the dominant narrative - from the alleged left or right. Freedom of speech is a danger to elites when you have freedom of reach (distribution).
Opposition American politician, Eugene Debs, with over a million votes (alleged extremist) imprisoned by autocratic President Woodrow Wilson for passing out pamphlets against the war entitled “ Anti-War Proclamation and Program”.
That's a mischaracterisation. Debs was convicted of encouraging violations of the law, specifically the draft laws. His arguing against the war was held to be perfectly legal.
This used to be more or less exactly my attitude but then my mom got really into QAnon nonsense and the whole Capitol raid thing unfolded and I've become a lot more sympathetic to just banning people raving about Chinese Manchurian candidates from social media. Honestly, even when alternative news sources are easily accessible nobody reads them.
Russiagate has its similarities but there are obvious limitations to trying to shut down any false or exaggerated narrative being promoted by people with federal power. But hey if you've got a plan I'm listening.
You'll note that the user you're replying to mentioned news organizations, not people with fedal power.
Can you name the people at these large tech companies you trust to determine what constitutes a hoax and what doesn't? How will you hold them to account should they get it wrong?
No, I don't, really. But they already do it, often in ways I dislike, and I can't see why to pretend the genie is back in the bottle and acting like I'm sad they're exercising that power against what I consider obviously harmful disinformation.
If you forgo justice in the name of the greater good don't be mad when you get neither.
By your own admission, it's a precarious moral tightrope you're walking here.
Every Web forum (this one quite notably included) has some kind of ground rules for moderation because if you don't have them they become overrun with pornography, hate speech, or some other kind of content that puts off the majority of users -- in other words they were never radical free speech zones in the first place. If we were talking about sending people to jail for sharing PizzaGate conspiracies I wouldn't support it, but I don't really see what benefit there is to Facebook or Twitter tolerating such content, and with something like 10% of Americans saying they at least partly believe in QAnon it is getting hard to act like the problems arising from this content are irrelevant or just a sideshow.
What is their excuse for not having a transparent and accountable model for their censorship efforts?
You never named the people at these companies you trust to decide what is conspiracy and what is not. I'm sure you can recall many recent examples of the censors getting it wrong however.
> If we were talking about sending people to jail for sharing PizzaGate conspiracies I wouldn't support it, but I don't really see what benefit there is to Facebook or Twitter tolerating such content
Why is the punishment morally revelant to the principle of freedom of conscience?
I bet there's a lot of people who would much rather go to jail than lose a Twitter account.
So you disagree with the 1st amendment in principle?
Websites either allow freedom of conscience or they do not.
The government supplying a "right" doesn't appear to be morally relevant.
I don’t really find it workable to say that the First Amendment means everyone has to let you use their site to say whatever you want. Again, consider this very site, which is strictly moderated.
10 years ago if you told me people who describe themselves as patriots would be embracing Putin's disinformation campaigns in the US, going so far as to attack the capital to overturn an election, I wouldn't believe you. But here we are.
It's beautiful how we reached the core conundrum so quickly in this HN comment thread. If we're going to start "rooting out extremists" and deplatforming them en-masse, who gets to decide what counts as extremism?
It's also hard to believe that you are casting doubt on the real problem that is political McCarthyism targeting Trump supporters and people who oppose One World Government directives.
Extremism is relative. The opinions of an average American in 2008 would be labelled "far-right" today (see: opposition to gay marriage, transgenderism, support for colorblindness, I could go on). Sooner or later, people will see that it's a fool's errand keeping up with this runaway train of an overton window.
The average American in 2008 was not walking into a synagogue and murdering people. Let's not pretend that far-right extremism is something other than what it actually is.
The average American in 2008 wasn't setting fire to courthouses. Let's not pretend that far-left extremism is something other than what it actually is.
My mother believed for the majority of her adult life that “semi-automatic” meant “fully automatic”, as in “squeeze once, all the bullets come out”. It’s incredible that people with little to no knowledge of the mechanics of guns want to regulate exactly that.
That is classic, soviet-style whataboutism. Yes, there are some left-wing extremists who have committed terrorist acts in recent years, but no, it is not the same as right-wing extremism. There are no left-wing militias running drills and planning to kidnap governors. Right-wing extremists exist in greater numbers, are more organized, and have been responsible for more violence in recent years than left-wing extremists.
The average American is not walking into a synagogue and murdering people in 2021. The most "far-right extremists" view you could possibly imagine is literally "please let me live and allow me to have children". That's literally the 14 words.
FYI: In 2009 a 88-year-old white supremacist started murdering people in the Holocaust Memorial Museum [0]
That period was also heavily dominated by Islamophobia in the US with firebomb attacks on Islamic Centers and random brown people getting assaulted and called "terrorists".
Heck, a mere 4 days after 9/11 happened a Sikh was shot for being mistaken as an Arab Muslim due to his turban [1]. Which actually makes no sense but hate rarely does.
Again, the average American was not out doing these things. I am not denying that there was a problem then, I am only saying that it is not representative of the average.
How do you even define the "average American" and in what context?
Are these people average Americans? [0]
No offense, but this sounds a lot like the argument how Trump supporters are allegedly just a "loud minority", a claim that's factually disproved not just by results from the public votes of two presidential elections, but the fact that he won one of them and only barely lost the other one.
Where does the "average American" fall in that context? Is there even an "average" when the only two valid political choices have become distilled down to a superficial "We are not the other party" forcing everybody to pick between two allegedly completely opposing sides?
MLK was not by any means color blind. The only way you could come to that conclusion is if your entire understanding of his politics were a single sound bite.
MLK recognized that people are, and are always going to, judge others as they are and like people who are similar to them. This is human nature, and it's important for our survival. People are always going to be different, but they can however, make a decision to treat others with basic dignity and respect, to set boundaries around dignity and respect, and not use those diffrences as a reason to persecute or take advantage of them. It was that humility and basic desency that he advocated for.
It's easy to look at someone and pass judgement. It's expensive to get to know someone, especially if they are very different than you are. Learning to judge someone by the content of their character is a difficult thing to ask of someone.
Imagine having to get to know Ed Gein. At the very least if you listened to the mans life, you'd be questioning if there really was a god or if nature really had any sanity, given the developmental trauma he experienced. It's way easier to see a guy wearing his mother's skin on his face and go "yep, crazy". It's harder to look beneath that and go "How the hell did society fail you?".
That is the reason why his message resonated so well. Not because he was color blind, that is naieve. It is because he pointed out, and very rightly, that ignoring the black community or any community of people over racism creates a lost opportunity.
>That is the reason why his message resonated so well. Not because he was color blind, that is naieve. It is because he pointed out, and very rightly, that ignoring the black community or any community of people over racism creates a lost opportunity.
What did or didn't resonate well is not really the point of the discussion but now that you bring it up, you'll remember one of King's least popular positions was one of his least color-blind ones: worker quotas.
Wow, looking at this thread, you appear to either be just a troll stirring up racism arguments, or else you are yourself a sickeningly extreme racist. It is just bonkers crazy reading some of your comments on a usually civil platform like Hacker News.
Sensationalism generates extremist beliefs as a consequence of its operation.
The mainstream media\media monopoly has two deeply engrained habits; one, the belief in distributing free news, two, in sensationalizing every story to maximize ad revenue.
Technology reduces cost, ergo, when costs reductions meet these two habitations, the net result is training the audience to accept sensationalisation itself as a brand and if they do so, you tend to polarize an audience in unpredictable ways as a consequence of operating your media empire.
Think about it this way. The reason the MSM puts out news is to sell advertising, and to the advertisers, we are products the MSM is selling to them. What do you do with products once you are done with them? You throw them in the garbage. Once we're used up we become trashed.
It's the belief that sensationalism itself is trustworthy that creates this trashing, and I would encourage anyone to learn to detect sensationalism as the psychological baseline for stimulation has risen to such an extreme these days.
In this instance, the moment we refer to any kind of warfare operation as "whack a mole" is when you begin rolling your eyes as the author is not treating people with respect.
Good, accurate information is expensive. If you need proof of that, talk to a historian.
>The reason the MSM puts out news is to sell advertising
I'm pretty skeptical about that. The major media outlets have significant influence over the political ideas that circulate through the electorate. In a democracy, that means having a lot of influence over which candidates are viable in elections, which, given how powerful governments are, is worth quite a lot more than ad revenue.
Why do you think Jeff Bezos bought the Washington Post? Do you think he was after the ad revenue?
>Why do you think Jeff Bezos bought the Washington Post? Do you think he was after the ad revenue?
So he can control the narrative about Amazon via one of the largest US newspapers and allow it to make more money. It's always about money. Power is just a proxy to money. Or maybe it's the other way around...
If they had the kind of sway over the public you say they had, then Trump wouldn't have recieved a record 72 million votes in 2020. They spent 4 years lambasting him over every single thing they could and the impact was an election about 90 million people in the US Think was rigged.
Nor does Zuckerberg spending $500 million on ballot harvesting initiatives and skirting the law where he could. The one thing this last election prooved is that when rich and powerful people feel threatened with losing power or fortune, they often decide to use whatever power they have and spend whatever fortune they've got to maintain what they have. We'll find out, as the forensic investigations drag on, exactly how compromised this election was. Suffice to say, an awful lot of people on the left are acting like they have nothing to lose which is a strong signal indictments and convictions are on the road ahead.
Free news is done to sell advertising, which also finds its way into their subscription businesses and even if you pay for WSJ, the articles are often paid for or done as political favors.
I said they have a lot of influence over which candidates are viable, not total control. Before becoming president, Trump was a very famous and interesting billionaire, which takes away a lot of the media's tools. The famous and interesting part makes it so people want to hear about him and will pull their eyeballs away from any media outlet that doesn't talk about him (which the media companies obviously care about because that takes away their influence), and the billionaire part gives him the ability to buy a credible campaign effort.
Certainly there are considerable numbers of people in this country that totally distrust the major media sources (for very good reason, in my opinion), but they still have considerable viewerships and therefore considerable influence over the thoughts and therefore votes of many.
Again, do you think Bezos was looking for the ad revenue? Or was he looking for political influence?
Mirriam-Webster defines "extremism" [1] as "advocacy of extreme measures or views : radicalism"
By this definition, extremism and radicalism are equivocated. However, I know many people on the "left" presently identify as radicals (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radical_left).
The article differentiates between the terms "extremism" and "radicalism" by assigning a "political-right" label to "extremists" and a "political-left" label to "radicals".
Stifling the extremes of one "side" while supporting the other "side" is how you implement cultural revolution. It is quite literally a repressive tactic.
The term "Whac-a-Mole" assigns a sense of childishness and fun to the extremism elimination efforts, which disarms "moderates" and dehumanizes cultural revolution.
The Democrats beat back a left-wing challenge from their base quite handily and Joe Biden was proud to say so. When I consider this and the generally contemptuous attitude of Dems toward their more progressive supporters, I find the notion of a Red Guard reshaping America in their image something like a fever dream and not a serious analysis.
To my mind the Capitol raid is playing a much larger role in their minds. The thought isn't "we need to create a far left America" but "we came way too close to the peaceful transfer of power being usurped."
The core base of the Democratic party; Pelosi, Schumer, Feinstein, and their ilk; have been in power in their jerrymandered districts for decades, and in line with accusing others what what they themselves are doing, they accused the Republicans for over a year with planning to usurp power for the mortal sin of making a fuss over Mail In Balloting, something most western countries have heavily restricted or outright banned.
In a country with more firearms in civillian ownership then every other countries military combined, Nobody in the Democratic party believes there was actually an insurrection. If there were, there'd be no place for congress or the senate to hide from the nationwide guerilla warfare.
As has happened so many times in politics, political parties get hijacked. The Democrats have been hijacked by foreign interests, the Republicans are in the process of being hijacked by domestic populists.
Getting a massive army to go for years of guerilla war is quite a different proposition from getting a small, committed group of people to storm a building and start taking hostages, especially if there is a rump that supports them.
So you don't need a massive army to engage in an insurrection but you do need a massive army to engage in Guerilla warfare? What sized army do you need to engage in terrorism?
Your own scenario was a large percentage of gun owners rising up, wasn't it? I'm simply telling you I think that's far harder to pull off than an alternate version of the Capitol raid where they managed to get their hands on representatives.
I think the salient point is that there are extremists on both sides but the article only concerns itself with right-wing extremists. In effect, this isn't a campaign against "extremism", it's a campaign to combat right-wing extremism while left-wing extremism continues to proliferate unfettered.
The OP characterizes this as a cultural revolution, but I don't think he made a particularly good case for it. Notably, I think "passively tolerating left-wing extremism while cracking down on right-wing extremism" is pretty weak evidence for CR. Rather, I would argue that CR begins when left authoritarianism begins--when the mainstream, majority viewpoint (the Overton Window) takes a back-seat to the left-wing extremist viewpoint due to intimidation.
If I were to argue that we're on the brink of a CR, I would sooner invoke cancel culture: threatening to get someone fired for espousing mainstream viewpoints (e.g., advocating for nonviolent protest or Tweeting an interview with a black man concerned about black-on-black crime). I would invoke BLM riots (no, I'm not talking about peaceful protests) and a media that refused to challenge the predominant narrative with obvious questions (e.g., "How are we collectively so sure that the cause of the shooting disparity is 'racist police' and not some other factor, to the extent that we are ready to burn neighborhoods to the ground rather than entertain dialogue?") and instead spent months rationalizing the violence. I would also note how remarkable it was that nearly every business in the hardest-hit areas were quick to hang "This business supports BLM" or "PoC owned business" signs, while their suburban and rural locations felt no such compulsion. I would invoke surveys showing chilled speech in newsrooms and the academy or an explicit willingness, pride even, from the same institutions to discriminate solely on the basis of politics.
Ultimately though, while left-wing extremism is concerning, I'm less interested in arguing over the threshold at which it becomes "Cultural Revolution". I think we should content ourselves to note that it is fundamentally illiberal and anti-human and continue advancing the causes of peace, justice, equality, and prosperity.
> I would also note how remarkable it was that nearly every business in the hardest-hit areas were quick to hang "This business supports BLM" or "PoC owned business" signs, while their suburban and rural locations felt no such compulsion.
One strains themselves wondering how anyone could possibly know this as a fact. Take a breath and think about this statement for a second and it becomes absurd in the extreme. This is disinformation par excellence; it sounds great if you agree, but cannot possibly be a fact either way. Bravo
It is constantly amazing to me that although we had a white supremacist president in the US, HN commenters always want to stress how “illiberal and anti-human” left wingers are. If I recall correctly, there are about 525k bodies on that president to be accounted for first
This person, the GP, now seems to be actively spreading disinformation.
I caught them claiming a complaint about efficacy in the Pfizer vaccine was about safety, after they put me down to try to make sure I didn’t read the study. I read the study and you can go look at my response[1]. The tell of the troll is that he never comes back to finish arguments....
The fact that HN thinks they have a handle on the disinformation here is laughable. This site was featured in a New Yorker article, does not filter out obvious propaganda, and allows anyone to say anything as long as its cordial. To think they could combat nation state level attacks with two people is ridiculous. This is a soft target.
The only thing we can do is pay attention to what our eyes and ears tell us.
>The tell of the troll is that he never comes back to finish arguments....
Really? Perhaps people on HN have lives and dislike engaging with hostile actors on the Internet.
>after they put me down to try to make sure I didn’t read the study
If you think I was putting you down, I sincerely apologize. I simply meant that anyone who understands the science well should read it. Nothing more. The insight of the knowledgeable on contradictory information is most helpful in challenging times.
I am surprised you appear to have engaged in a vendetta based upon a misinterpretation.
You have yet to come clean about the obvious disinformation you are spreading, and seek only to redirect the conversation to something interpersonal instead of factual.
Setting the interpersonal aside, How can one claim in good faith that they are representing the truth, when they demonstrably lie about the content of their citations to further their argument and refuse to reconcile with that?
I think people can have wrongheaded beliefs without state actors being involved, and after the number of such accusations I've received myself I'm pretty skeptical of them.
That's not really incompatible with him just sincerely believing what he's saying. I'm not saying he's right because I think what he's writing is nonsense, but I doubt there's a master plan here.
This account is actively spreading disinformation. They are spreading FUD about vaccines and now about ANTIFA. They site spurious sources and they are not being properly flagged.
I’m amazed that they think that two moderators could combat nation states. Such hubris.
Leftist extremism doesn't exist. Look how many years they spent telling us Islam is a religion of peace and calling every islamic attach on society a lone wolf attack.
Cognitive dissonance. Populations doesn't know what to think anymore if they think at all.
Because there's no serious left-wing insurgency anybody is worried about. There are people who like posting guillotine images on Twitter but little real-world impact.
There were left wing rioters burning down buildings all summer and pushing for extreme policies to be instituted in our government. I'm quite worried about that, and the fact that many power centers fell in line to pretend it wasn't happening.
And what impact have they had beyond a bunch of anodyne "we support black lives" statements? It's not even clear to me that the rioters were particularly well organized or politically engaged so I'm not sure that social media targeting would make much difference (with I guess the possible exception of censoring any police violence videos).
Thousands of houses and businesses burned down, families moving out of cities, huge records set for guns sold and for first time gun buyers, and you pretend nothing happened last year.
These riots were lead by avowed Marxists. They received millions in donations from the largest companies in the world. These same companies lined up to shut down any criticism of these riots. At the same time, countervailing forced are censored and demonized (maybe rightfully, but wildly unequally) and swiftly wiped off the internet by coordinated efforts.
I respect the fact that people can think these are good things, but pretending it's business as usual is just laughable.
I'm not a member of those companies' boards, so I could not say. I suspect because they're politically aligned with the "soundbite" message presented by the leadership of the riots, and that their marketing teams calculated it is beneficial for PR purposes. Useful Innocents.
My suspicion is that the protests are far less coordinated or politically aligned than you suggest. For every "committed Marxist" involved I think you have a lot of plain old liberals and people with no real coherent political ideology at all.
That's surely the case with many protestors, but these protests these widespread didn't happen without coordination at the top. Ironically, that's one of the reasons why Occupy Wall Street failed miserably: it was mostly just bored NYC-area college students that wanted something to do.
The Antifa flag bears obvious similarity to the Antifaschistische Aktion flag.
"Antifaschistische Aktion...was a militant anti-fascist organisation in the Weimar Republic started by members of the Communist Party of Germany (KPD) that existed from 1932 to 1933." [1]
"In the United States, antifa of the early 21st-century has drawn its aesthetics and some of its tactics from Antifaschistische Aktion." [1]
The link between Antifaschistische Aktion and Antifa was drawn within a detailed article [2] published in Jacobin, who is "a leading voice of the American left, offering socialist perspectives on politics, economics, and culture" [3].
Given that "insurgent" is defined as "a person who revolts against civil authority or an established government" [4], and CHAZ/CHOP were revolts against civil authority, Antifa is clearly a left-wing insurgency.
Whac-A-Mole is an arcade game for children. It has holes in the playing surface, and a mallet or hammer that the player holds. Mechanized moles pop up out of these holes, stay up for a moment, and then go back down. The player attempts to hit the mole with the mallet while the mole is up out of the hole. The difficulty is knowing which mole (or which hole) is going to be the next one you need to hit.
Indeed. What is the action that corresponds to "hit" in your explanation, and who is undertaking it when the extremism "pops up"?
Deleting someone's account doesn't remove them from society, and doesn't change their views, and doesn't prevent them from using other websites, talking to people offline, organizing groups, et c.
In whac-a-mole, you boop it and it goes down/away, you having scored a point.
What do people want to do when online extremism is detected, and why do they think that will be an effective technique for their goals?
Ah, sorry, I read your comment as not knowing what the game was.
"Whac", in this context, is to delete or block an account. That doesn't remove the person, just as in the literal game whacking a mole just drives it below the playing surface. The whole point of calling it Whac-A-Mole is that blocking people or suspending accounts doesn't actually change anything or remove the people, it just temporarily drives them back underground. They'll pop up again soon enough.
Once there is money involved, people will be dogged. Nobody is going to take it sitting down if they're making tens of thousands of dollars and you shut them down.
I am (again) saddened to see how much of HN appears to be engrossed in right-wing grifterism.
The GOP is literally playing with the fire of stochastic & headless terrorism, driven by a sophisticated & well-documented misinformation campaign that has convinced many millions of people that the election was stolen and that donald trump(of all people) is anointed by god to root out a global satanic, pedophilistic cabal that is responsible for all of the world's woes. A lot of these people think the world is ending and it's now or never.
These same people showed up at the nation's capital with every intention of taking hostages & holding show trials.
But you know what the real problem is? Groups of young, ineffectual leftists who don't even show up to vote let alone participate in government.
>These same people showed up at the nation's capital with every intention of taking hostages & holding show trials.
Is that the current description? What happened to "attempted coup"? Oh wait, maybe five armed people out of 150 who entered the Capitol != coup attempt by any level of common sense, so I guess now the above is the description du jour. Never mind the preposterousness of such a group also "taking hostages & holding show trials". Perhaps in another few months the MSM consensus will finally get to what was and is obvious to anyone who isn't histrionic: 150 idiots (the vast majority unarmed) who illegally trespassed into a government building. They can and will be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law ... As far as "illegal trespass into a government building" can go, at least.
(And no, the Capitol police officer who died wasn't "killed by a fire extinguisher" wielded by said idiots. He died at home from unknown causes and apparently wasn't assaulted by anyone https://www.cnn.com/2021/02/02/politics/brian-sicknick-charg... .)
I'm not sure if you watched the events unfold that day, but I did via multiple live streams. Your attempt to downplay what occurred rings hollow. In fact the only thing I'd agree with is that the people involved are idiots - they legitimately think the election was stolen, and that it was now or never to take it back.
The organized(but separate - probably not aware of each other) groups that used the crowd as a cover had every intention of taking hostages at a minimum. One can make an educated guess from the mountains of evidence collected from their cesspools online and from chatter amongst the participants themselves during the riot that they intended to go even farther than that.
I'm not sure how the beating of officers with fire extinguishers(which did occur and is documented in photos & videos) became connected to Sicknick's death. Noting the initial reporting was wrong is not the gotcha or rebuttal you think it is.
118 comments
[ 0.17 ms ] story [ 178 ms ] threadOpposition American politician, Eugene Debs, with over a million votes (alleged extremist) imprisoned by autocratic President Woodrow Wilson for passing out pamphlets against the war entitled “ Anti-War Proclamation and Program”.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Debs_v._United_States
In the ultimate twist of fate the advocates for censorship get censored by Facebook:
https://twitter.com/jimmy_dore/status/1354572535799504901?
An academic conference on censorship gets censored by Youtube:
https://www.mintpressnews.com/media-censorship-conference-ce...
Every Web forum (this one quite notably included) has some kind of ground rules for moderation because if you don't have them they become overrun with pornography, hate speech, or some other kind of content that puts off the majority of users -- in other words they were never radical free speech zones in the first place. If we were talking about sending people to jail for sharing PizzaGate conspiracies I wouldn't support it, but I don't really see what benefit there is to Facebook or Twitter tolerating such content, and with something like 10% of Americans saying they at least partly believe in QAnon it is getting hard to act like the problems arising from this content are irrelevant or just a sideshow.
Why is the punishment morally revelant to the principle of freedom of conscience? I bet there's a lot of people who would much rather go to jail than lose a Twitter account.
10 years ago if you told me people who describe themselves as patriots would be embracing Putin's disinformation campaigns in the US, going so far as to attack the capital to overturn an election, I wouldn't believe you. But here we are.
It appears that these terms have lost meaning and are fair game to throw around regularly in articles about Trump supporters or conservatives.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Remington_Model_700
This is just incorrect. Bolt action and muzzleloaded rifles are both extremely common and not semiautomatic.
That being said, "semiautomatic" is usually a useless scare-word thrown in by people who have no clue what they're talking about.
That period was also heavily dominated by Islamophobia in the US with firebomb attacks on Islamic Centers and random brown people getting assaulted and called "terrorists".
Heck, a mere 4 days after 9/11 happened a Sikh was shot for being mistaken as an Arab Muslim due to his turban [1]. Which actually makes no sense but hate rarely does.
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Holocaust_Memori...
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murder_of_Balbir_Singh_Sodhi
Are these people average Americans? [0]
No offense, but this sounds a lot like the argument how Trump supporters are allegedly just a "loud minority", a claim that's factually disproved not just by results from the public votes of two presidential elections, but the fact that he won one of them and only barely lost the other one.
Where does the "average American" fall in that context? Is there even an "average" when the only two valid political choices have become distilled down to a superficial "We are not the other party" forcing everybody to pick between two allegedly completely opposing sides?
[0] https://youtu.be/KHJlZyFxp88
It's easy to look at someone and pass judgement. It's expensive to get to know someone, especially if they are very different than you are. Learning to judge someone by the content of their character is a difficult thing to ask of someone.
Imagine having to get to know Ed Gein. At the very least if you listened to the mans life, you'd be questioning if there really was a god or if nature really had any sanity, given the developmental trauma he experienced. It's way easier to see a guy wearing his mother's skin on his face and go "yep, crazy". It's harder to look beneath that and go "How the hell did society fail you?".
That is the reason why his message resonated so well. Not because he was color blind, that is naieve. It is because he pointed out, and very rightly, that ignoring the black community or any community of people over racism creates a lost opportunity.
What did or didn't resonate well is not really the point of the discussion but now that you bring it up, you'll remember one of King's least popular positions was one of his least color-blind ones: worker quotas.
The mainstream media\media monopoly has two deeply engrained habits; one, the belief in distributing free news, two, in sensationalizing every story to maximize ad revenue.
Technology reduces cost, ergo, when costs reductions meet these two habitations, the net result is training the audience to accept sensationalisation itself as a brand and if they do so, you tend to polarize an audience in unpredictable ways as a consequence of operating your media empire.
Think about it this way. The reason the MSM puts out news is to sell advertising, and to the advertisers, we are products the MSM is selling to them. What do you do with products once you are done with them? You throw them in the garbage. Once we're used up we become trashed.
It's the belief that sensationalism itself is trustworthy that creates this trashing, and I would encourage anyone to learn to detect sensationalism as the psychological baseline for stimulation has risen to such an extreme these days.
In this instance, the moment we refer to any kind of warfare operation as "whack a mole" is when you begin rolling your eyes as the author is not treating people with respect.
Good, accurate information is expensive. If you need proof of that, talk to a historian.
I'm pretty skeptical about that. The major media outlets have significant influence over the political ideas that circulate through the electorate. In a democracy, that means having a lot of influence over which candidates are viable in elections, which, given how powerful governments are, is worth quite a lot more than ad revenue.
Why do you think Jeff Bezos bought the Washington Post? Do you think he was after the ad revenue?
So he can control the narrative about Amazon via one of the largest US newspapers and allow it to make more money. It's always about money. Power is just a proxy to money. Or maybe it's the other way around...
Stuff like this doesn't help the optics. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WGRnhBmHYN0
Nor does Zuckerberg spending $500 million on ballot harvesting initiatives and skirting the law where he could. The one thing this last election prooved is that when rich and powerful people feel threatened with losing power or fortune, they often decide to use whatever power they have and spend whatever fortune they've got to maintain what they have. We'll find out, as the forensic investigations drag on, exactly how compromised this election was. Suffice to say, an awful lot of people on the left are acting like they have nothing to lose which is a strong signal indictments and convictions are on the road ahead.
Look at the MSM's SEC 8k and 10k filings. https://investors.newscorp.com/node/10126/html
Free news is done to sell advertising, which also finds its way into their subscription businesses and even if you pay for WSJ, the articles are often paid for or done as political favors.
Certainly there are considerable numbers of people in this country that totally distrust the major media sources (for very good reason, in my opinion), but they still have considerable viewerships and therefore considerable influence over the thoughts and therefore votes of many.
Again, do you think Bezos was looking for the ad revenue? Or was he looking for political influence?
By this definition, extremism and radicalism are equivocated. However, I know many people on the "left" presently identify as radicals (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radical_left).
The article differentiates between the terms "extremism" and "radicalism" by assigning a "political-right" label to "extremists" and a "political-left" label to "radicals".
Stifling the extremes of one "side" while supporting the other "side" is how you implement cultural revolution. It is quite literally a repressive tactic.
The term "Whac-a-Mole" assigns a sense of childishness and fun to the extremism elimination efforts, which disarms "moderates" and dehumanizes cultural revolution.
[1] https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/extremism
To my mind the Capitol raid is playing a much larger role in their minds. The thought isn't "we need to create a far left America" but "we came way too close to the peaceful transfer of power being usurped."
In a country with more firearms in civillian ownership then every other countries military combined, Nobody in the Democratic party believes there was actually an insurrection. If there were, there'd be no place for congress or the senate to hide from the nationwide guerilla warfare.
As has happened so many times in politics, political parties get hijacked. The Democrats have been hijacked by foreign interests, the Republicans are in the process of being hijacked by domestic populists.
Er, Senate “districts” are States, it is impossible for them to be gerrymandered. So clearly that's impossible for 2 out of 3.
And while Pelosi is in the House, no one is going to point to CA-12 as much of an example of gerrymandering.
https://pelosi.house.gov/about/our-district
The OP characterizes this as a cultural revolution, but I don't think he made a particularly good case for it. Notably, I think "passively tolerating left-wing extremism while cracking down on right-wing extremism" is pretty weak evidence for CR. Rather, I would argue that CR begins when left authoritarianism begins--when the mainstream, majority viewpoint (the Overton Window) takes a back-seat to the left-wing extremist viewpoint due to intimidation.
If I were to argue that we're on the brink of a CR, I would sooner invoke cancel culture: threatening to get someone fired for espousing mainstream viewpoints (e.g., advocating for nonviolent protest or Tweeting an interview with a black man concerned about black-on-black crime). I would invoke BLM riots (no, I'm not talking about peaceful protests) and a media that refused to challenge the predominant narrative with obvious questions (e.g., "How are we collectively so sure that the cause of the shooting disparity is 'racist police' and not some other factor, to the extent that we are ready to burn neighborhoods to the ground rather than entertain dialogue?") and instead spent months rationalizing the violence. I would also note how remarkable it was that nearly every business in the hardest-hit areas were quick to hang "This business supports BLM" or "PoC owned business" signs, while their suburban and rural locations felt no such compulsion. I would invoke surveys showing chilled speech in newsrooms and the academy or an explicit willingness, pride even, from the same institutions to discriminate solely on the basis of politics.
Ultimately though, while left-wing extremism is concerning, I'm less interested in arguing over the threshold at which it becomes "Cultural Revolution". I think we should content ourselves to note that it is fundamentally illiberal and anti-human and continue advancing the causes of peace, justice, equality, and prosperity.
One strains themselves wondering how anyone could possibly know this as a fact. Take a breath and think about this statement for a second and it becomes absurd in the extreme. This is disinformation par excellence; it sounds great if you agree, but cannot possibly be a fact either way. Bravo
It is constantly amazing to me that although we had a white supremacist president in the US, HN commenters always want to stress how “illiberal and anti-human” left wingers are. If I recall correctly, there are about 525k bodies on that president to be accounted for first
I caught them claiming a complaint about efficacy in the Pfizer vaccine was about safety, after they put me down to try to make sure I didn’t read the study. I read the study and you can go look at my response[1]. The tell of the troll is that he never comes back to finish arguments....
The fact that HN thinks they have a handle on the disinformation here is laughable. This site was featured in a New Yorker article, does not filter out obvious propaganda, and allows anyone to say anything as long as its cordial. To think they could combat nation state level attacks with two people is ridiculous. This is a soft target.
The only thing we can do is pay attention to what our eyes and ears tell us.
[1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26480280
Really? Perhaps people on HN have lives and dislike engaging with hostile actors on the Internet.
>after they put me down to try to make sure I didn’t read the study
If you think I was putting you down, I sincerely apologize. I simply meant that anyone who understands the science well should read it. Nothing more. The insight of the knowledgeable on contradictory information is most helpful in challenging times.
I am surprised you appear to have engaged in a vendetta based upon a misinterpretation.
You have yet to come clean about the obvious disinformation you are spreading, and seek only to redirect the conversation to something interpersonal instead of factual.
Setting the interpersonal aside, How can one claim in good faith that they are representing the truth, when they demonstrably lie about the content of their citations to further their argument and refuse to reconcile with that?
State actor or not, you are using troll tactics to spread disinformation, and it is blatantly obvious. Receipts: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26480280
I’m amazed that they think that two moderators could combat nation states. Such hubris.
https://scholar.princeton.edu/sites/default/files/mgilens/fi...
Cognitive dissonance. Populations doesn't know what to think anymore if they think at all.
I respect the fact that people can think these are good things, but pretending it's business as usual is just laughable.
https://www.axios.com/riots-cost-property-damage-276c9bcc-a4...
I'm more worried about the multitudes of heavily-armed radicals who believe in the election Big Lie or QAnon.
"Antifaschistische Aktion...was a militant anti-fascist organisation in the Weimar Republic started by members of the Communist Party of Germany (KPD) that existed from 1932 to 1933." [1]
"In the United States, antifa of the early 21st-century has drawn its aesthetics and some of its tactics from Antifaschistische Aktion." [1]
The link between Antifaschistische Aktion and Antifa was drawn within a detailed article [2] published in Jacobin, who is "a leading voice of the American left, offering socialist perspectives on politics, economics, and culture" [3].
Given that "insurgent" is defined as "a person who revolts against civil authority or an established government" [4], and CHAZ/CHOP were revolts against civil authority, Antifa is clearly a left-wing insurgency.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antifaschistische_Aktion
[2] https://www.jacobinmag.com/2017/05/antifascist-movements-hit...
[3] https://jacobinmag.com/about
[4] https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/insurgent
Deleting someone's account doesn't remove them from society, and doesn't change their views, and doesn't prevent them from using other websites, talking to people offline, organizing groups, et c.
In whac-a-mole, you boop it and it goes down/away, you having scored a point.
What do people want to do when online extremism is detected, and why do they think that will be an effective technique for their goals?
"Whac", in this context, is to delete or block an account. That doesn't remove the person, just as in the literal game whacking a mole just drives it below the playing surface. The whole point of calling it Whac-A-Mole is that blocking people or suspending accounts doesn't actually change anything or remove the people, it just temporarily drives them back underground. They'll pop up again soon enough.
The GOP is literally playing with the fire of stochastic & headless terrorism, driven by a sophisticated & well-documented misinformation campaign that has convinced many millions of people that the election was stolen and that donald trump(of all people) is anointed by god to root out a global satanic, pedophilistic cabal that is responsible for all of the world's woes. A lot of these people think the world is ending and it's now or never.
These same people showed up at the nation's capital with every intention of taking hostages & holding show trials.
But you know what the real problem is? Groups of young, ineffectual leftists who don't even show up to vote let alone participate in government.
Is that the current description? What happened to "attempted coup"? Oh wait, maybe five armed people out of 150 who entered the Capitol != coup attempt by any level of common sense, so I guess now the above is the description du jour. Never mind the preposterousness of such a group also "taking hostages & holding show trials". Perhaps in another few months the MSM consensus will finally get to what was and is obvious to anyone who isn't histrionic: 150 idiots (the vast majority unarmed) who illegally trespassed into a government building. They can and will be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law ... As far as "illegal trespass into a government building" can go, at least.
(And no, the Capitol police officer who died wasn't "killed by a fire extinguisher" wielded by said idiots. He died at home from unknown causes and apparently wasn't assaulted by anyone https://www.cnn.com/2021/02/02/politics/brian-sicknick-charg... .)
The organized(but separate - probably not aware of each other) groups that used the crowd as a cover had every intention of taking hostages at a minimum. One can make an educated guess from the mountains of evidence collected from their cesspools online and from chatter amongst the participants themselves during the riot that they intended to go even farther than that.
I'm not sure how the beating of officers with fire extinguishers(which did occur and is documented in photos & videos) became connected to Sicknick's death. Noting the initial reporting was wrong is not the gotcha or rebuttal you think it is.