> Extremist bigots take it as read that people of the wrong ethnic/religious/political group are either not people or at best inferior people, and direct their efforts to promoting those views, planning how to eliminate those they dislike, and normalizing that behavior.
Yes, extremist bigots do tend to favor deplatforming: they just want to deplatform a different group.
Surely we can behave better than the bigots?
> You are, essentially, projecting the characteristics of bad actors onto other actors who are warning and complaining about said bad actors.
Yes, but it's not just projection: the shoe fits.
If we behave like them we are no better than them. We on the left can't claim tolerance if we only tolerate people we agree with.
> That's a tactic known as 'entryism' designed to leverage your nice, conflict-averse personality as a vehicle for normalization and possible future recruitment.
LOL at me being conflict-averse. Check out my post history.
Yes, extremist bigots do tend to favor deplatforming: they just want to deplatform a different group.
I'm not talking about deplatforming, I'm talking about the sort of extremist bigots who advocate, organize, or engage in murdering people. You are free to present deplatforming as an equal ill to that if you wish.
If we behave like them we are no better than them. We on the left can't claim tolerance if we only tolerate people we agree with.
Tolerating disagreement and tolerating murder are not really equivalent. You're not obliged to give someone a hug if they're trying to stab you, for example.
> You are free to present deplatforming as an equal ill to that if you wish.
Sigh. Can we not do the obvious straw man arguments?
> Tolerating disagreement and tolerating murder are not really equivalent.
That's true.
Bigots and murderers are also not really equivalent. Nobody is talking about tolerating murderers, so again, let's try to not toss around straw man arguments.
> Yes, extremist bigots do tend to favor deplatforming: they just want to deplatform a different group.
> Surely we can behave better than the bigots?
In a vacuum, I'd agree. As in, in the real world, I would agree. If this were a true human contact based forum, the voice of many regular, busy people will always trump the voice of a few raging bigots. Culturally, we've moved past that; at least in urban centres where this sort of discussion could actually happen.
On the internet, it is different. Posting on the internet is gamified. The rules are simple. To get more influence, you need to be upvoted/favorited/hearted. If your opinion sucks, you are downvoated/blocked/etc.
It's simple, right? But it's also very easily gamed via astroturfing/botting/upvote-downvote farming/influence manipulation. Case in point, any political subreddit prior to the general election in 2016.
Because of this fact, any attempt at good faith discussions in popular forums simply do not exist anymore. Just take a look at how many garbage posts are at the top of any popular subreddit vs actually insightful posts.
Politicians who use these to gain grassroots support have learned to game the system. And enterprising individuals from all over the world are flocking to them. There is big business in upvote/downvote farms, botnets, and influence manipulation via social engineering. Clearly none of these is done in good faith.
Places that have been deplatformed are not always simply people who harbor alternative opinions from the norm. They are places or groups of people who wilfully try debase discussion via the aforementioned methods.
There are bad actors on all sides of any discussion, but it seems to me like organized bad faith is always at the core of the most toxic, polarized places on the internet.
To fix polarization, we must fix the gaming mechanics of these places. More moderation for cheaters is priority number 1.
I think you are right to identify gamification of social media as part of the problem, but I think we need to be careful not to lump in every opinion we disagree with, with people who are using astroturfing/botting/farming/etc. Manipulation of the gamification systems is clearly not in good faith, but there are plenty of real people with odious opinions that they hold due to fear and/or ignorance, but hold in good faith.
Yes, extremist bigots do tend to favor deplatforming: they just want to deplatform a different group.
Surely we can behave better than the bigots?
> You are, essentially, projecting the characteristics of bad actors onto other actors who are warning and complaining about said bad actors.
Yes, but it's not just projection: the shoe fits.
If we behave like them we are no better than them. We on the left can't claim tolerance if we only tolerate people we agree with.
> That's a tactic known as 'entryism' designed to leverage your nice, conflict-averse personality as a vehicle for normalization and possible future recruitment.
LOL at me being conflict-averse. Check out my post history.