Was your page full of actual hate speech such as "exterminate the jews" or was it full of "hate speech" such as criticizing politicians who happen to be minorities?
Same question regarding fake news: was your page full of actual fake news suh as "Elon Musk has died", or was it full of political speech you don't like, such as "wearing masks is not worth the inconvenience"?
Unfortunately most of the arguments against wearing masks are petty and bullshit given that the inconvenience of wearing one is insignificant for most people.
Sure, if you have genuine health concerns wearing one then don’t. But most of the people that moaned about it were really just moaning about being told what to do.
I had one mum in my kids school quoting the Magna Carta as a reason not to wear masks, which is simply ridiculous. And others claim that long term use of thermometers could be damaging to kids health, which completely misses the fact that such devices are entirely passive instruments.
That was the point I quit Facebook. I realised my time was too valuable to read so much stupid.
I couldn’t give a crap how you might choose to describe it. It’s still too much stupidity to be worth my effort reading. So I chose to stop reading it.
You cannot force intelligent people to read your mindless drivel just because you consider it “political”. And “mindless drivel” is exactly how I viewed the baseless debates against masks, vaccines, public health and such like.
> (removed because parent comment edited their comment substantially)
I really didn’t. I just added some personal anecdotes in a subsequent paragraph to describe why I personally quit Facebook. The body of what you replied to was unchanged.
> I couldn’t give a crap how you might choose to describe it. It’s still too much stupidity to be worth my effort reading. So I chose to stop reading it.
Nobody here is advocating that you must continue reading Facebook. I'm not on Facebook. I don't advocate anyone else to go on Facebook either.
> You cannot force intelligent people to read your mindless drivel just because you consider it “political”. And that’s exactly how I viewed the baseless debates against masks, vaccines, and such like.
Nobody is forcing you to expose yourself to political opinions that are contrary to your political opinions. People are entirely free to stay in their own little bubbles if they choose to do so, but they should also be free to discuss major political decisions, such as mask mandates, if that's what they want to do.
> > (removed because parent comment edited their comment substantially)
> I really didn’t.
This is a flat out lie. Please stop spreading disinformation.
> I just added some personal anecdotes in a subsequent paragraph to describe why I personally quit Facebook. The body of what you replied to was unchanged.
Your comment originally described unwanted political speech, but implied that the speech was actually fake news. I called you out on that, my comment was roughly "That is a good description of political speech. It is not a description of hate speech or fake news". Then you edited your comment to add in a description of fake news. Specifically, you added this: "And others claim that long term use of thermometers could be damaging to kids health, which completely misses the fact that such devices are entirely passive instruments." This anecdote is a good description of fake news. So now my comment appears as if I claimed that this fake news is not fake news. So you essentially edited your comment to make me appear like a conspiracy nut. And now you're lying about what you did.
Your comment about fake news is about masks. The context of that is clear. My comment cannot retroactively change the context of a comment I’m replying to.
Though this is another good example of why I gave up with Facebook (and an increasing tendency I’ve noticed on HN too): conversations get really meta really quickly. When peoples views are based on opinion rather than science it’s impossible to hold a conversation with anyone because you cannot cite opinion. Thus conversations quickly degrade into meta arguments where opinions are “proven” by boring their opponents via “death by a thousand paper cuts”. It becomes as worthwhile as debating atheism with a priest (people are entitled to opinions but arguing over beliefs is never going to end well for either party).
So the smarter thing to do here is me to duck out of the conversation now.
It can’t. Period. That’s simply not how conversations work.
I mean if you cannot agree in that basic premise then there’s no hope in ever having a contextually specific conversation because someone can just shift the goal posts whenever it suits them and claim that was always the narrative.
> It can’t. Period. That’s simply not how conversations work.
This is the most pedantic nitpick I have ever seen. Yes, current events can not modify historical events, because time travel is impossible. That said, it is possible to fool outside observers (in the future) by editing a previous comment.
It’s not a pedantic nitpick if the sole premise of your replies is repeatedly arguing the opposite position. This post, however, is a pedantic nitpick ;)
And no, I cannot fool outside observers because I didn’t edit your post which contained the context you defined. To that regard, I’m as much an observer as anyone else.
Honestly, I wish I took my own advice about not engaging in stupid meta arguments.
> And no, I cannot fool outside observers because I didn’t edit your post which contained the context you defined.
You say "Vegans are awful."
I say "I disagree 100%"
You edit your post to say "Nazis are bad."
Now the outside observer sees 2 posts, one by you saying that "Nazis are bad", and the next post by me, saying "I disagree 100%". Thus, you have fooled an outside observer to think that I don't think Nazis are bad.
> To that regard, I’m as much an observer as anyone else.
No you're not, you have knowledge that "I disagree 100%" was in response to vegans being awful, but an outside observer who comes in late will not have that knowledge.
Even putting aside that I didn’t edit anything out of my post, unlike the ridiculous Nazi analogy you made, I couldn’t have changed the context of your post because you posted it before my opening comment
Or to use you’re ridiculous nazi analogy, I’m the one replying, not the one making the ridiculous nazi comments.
Of course not. But comments don’t have to be hate speech to be damaging nonsense. And things don’t even have to be damaging for them to be too stupid for me to want to read.
I only have a finite number of hours in the day, so why would I waste them reading stupid comments from people latching onto conspiracies because they need some form of belief system to cope with the chaos?
Common problem that words are taken to heart by those that weren't meant to do that in the first place.
But I think there cannot be objective rules. Sure, you can scrap some vulgar words but even that could be negative. It is a problem that has to be solved on the receiving end.
I think indignation of what other people say online is the vastly larger problem than any conspiracy. What we have seen related to comments about Covid was not pretty. It really underlined why content should be as unrestricted as possible.
> Common problem that words are taken to heart by those that weren't meant to do that in the first place.
I’m not so sure about that. I think many of the opinions shared on social media are ones that people are passions about. Even if it’s unconsciously passionate.
> But I think there cannot be objective rules. Sure, you can scrap some vulgar words but even that could be negative. It is a problem that has to be solved on the receiving end.
Indeed. Which is why Facebook are losing members. To quote the movie “Wargames”: The only winning move is not to play.
> I think indignation of what other people say online is the vastly larger problem than any conspiracy. What we have seen related to comments about Covid was not pretty. It really underlined why content should be as unrestricted as possible.
The comments about COVID come from the same folk that follow conspiracy theories. The problem is once you stop listening to science and assume that experts cannot be trusted, you’re then defaulting to a position that there must be a conspiracy. It doesn’t mean all folk who are curious are worshipers of Qanon but the fact remains they still believe there is a conspiracy.
To believe there is complete consensus between experts is a similar conspiracy theory.
People don't get vaccinated for different reasons and one very sensible on is not to make yourself a subject to "science". Because that does not exist and even statements from scientists need scrutiny, their work even depends on it. Any serious scientist will confirm that for you.
You cannot generalize critics as "folks that follow conspiracy theories", as a matter of fact that is why we see less and less trust in officials. They need criticism too.
> To believe there is complete consensus between experts is a similar conspiracy theory.
There’s a gulf of difference between accepting that scientific opinion is divided; and thinking experts cannot be trusted.
Conflating the two is simply silly because the former is being open minded to new evidence and analysis, and discussing those findings. Where as the latter is being closed minded to all formal evidence and analysis and refusing to discuss the science. To be honest this feels like a bloody obvious distinction that shouldn’t need to be made yet people do seem confused by it.
> People don't get vaccinated for different reasons and one very sensible on is not to make yourself a subject to "science". Because that does not exist and even statements from scientists need scrutiny, their work even depends on it. Any serious scientist will confirm that for you.
Confirm what? Your comment here it gibberish.
If people have a medical reason not to be vaccinated then they obviously should not be vaccinated. However that just means it’s even more important for all those who are able to be vaccinated to be vaccinated (to reduce the overall risk so those at risk are protected by proxy).
Saying “I don’t trust the science” is just a bullshit way of saying “i don’t understand science but also too lazy to learn it” and thus not an acceptable reason to avoid vaccination.
> You cannot generalize critics as "folks that follow conspiracy theories", as a matter of fact that is why we see less and less trust in officials. They need criticism too.
I can and I did. ;)
Yes, science does need criticism. Which is exactly why it already happens. We called it “peer review” (in fact you said yourself that scientists don’t always have a consensus so you’re contradicting your own arguments now).
The problem is people like yourself just assume those reviewers are also part of the conspiracy whenever that peer review doesn’t align with your assumed position. There’s literally Jack shit one can do to convince a person that due diligence has been done if that person has already convinced themselves that something isn’t safe and anyone that tells them otherwise is a liar.
> here’s a gulf of difference between accepting that scientific opinion is divided; and thinking experts cannot be trusted.
In contemporary culture I see people trying to ban diverging opinions. There is no depth to it. So nuance is not permitted. I don't see people blankly refuse or forbid statements of experts. There is not a rift between the closed and opened minded people. If so, both sides must be close minded.
> Confirm what?
That any scientific discovery must hold against scrutiny, it is as simple as that.
> If people have a medical reason not to be vaccinated
There is a huge political component. I am vaccinated but have called an anti-vaxxer because I don't support mandates, which are now pretty much off the table anyway. People that called for it should be glad most people are not that reactionary to refuse any further discussion. Really glad.
> I don’t trust the science
Nobody is saying anything like that.
> I can and I did. ;)
That is pretty unscientific of you as a the diagnostics of hate speech.
> In contemporary culture I see people trying to ban diverging opinions. There is no depth to it. So nuance is not permitted
Yeah, I can’t say I entirely agree with banning of opinions either.
> I don't see people blankly refuse or forbid statements of experts.
Really? The EU referendum in the U.K. was literally based around the phrase “so called experts” as a way of undermining reports from experts in finance and trade so MPs could focus on the more emotive topics of sovereignty and immigration.
You see it again with COVID about how experts are hiding the truth. Etc etc.
Lately there has been a huge anti-movement against trusting experts.
> There is not a rift between the closed and opened minded people. If so, both sides must be close minded.
I see what you’re trying to do but that logic doesn’t work. You can have a rift with both sides being open minded and still disagreeing.
The fact that science promotes debate and peer review suggests it is open minded. The fact that conspiracies depend on distrusting sources means it is not open minded. One is open to exploring new ideas and research. The latter pretends to be open minded but actually only accepts ideas that confirm an opinion already held.
> That any scientific discovery must hold against scrutiny, it is as simple as that
That’s literally what already happens.
> There is a huge political component. I am vaccinated but have called an anti-vaxxer because I don't support mandates, which are now pretty much off the table anyway.
That doesn’t make you an anti-vaxxer. Whoever called you that was clearly being more emotive than factual. Objecting against vaccines is being an anti-vaxxer. Supporting freedom of choice is being a libertarian.
> > I don’t trust the science
> Nobody is saying anything like that.
I’ve seen people literally say that regarding the COVID vaccines.
> That is pretty unscientific of you as a the diagnostics of hate
Not really. That comment you quoted was me being flippant (hence the wink). The paragraphs that followed that remark explains the rational behind my remark.
Also even if you disagree that people who believe experts are conspiring to deceive them aren’t conspiracy theorists (I can’t see how you’d disagree with that statement but it seems you do), that still doesn’t constitute as “hate speech”.
Your definition of hate speech is irrelevant. Whatever the GP saw was enough for them that they made a decision to remove their personal exposure, which is their right. They aren't censoring you or anyone else by making that choice.
Sure. And if GP genuinely believes that what they saw was actual hate speech and fake news, they may (or may not) feel like they want to explain that yes it actually was that. At least that's how I usually respond when I see outrageous lies being spread.
> Saying all white people are racist is considered progressive.
By whom? Not progressives. It is a standard right-wing a
way of attempting to distract from actual progressive statements like “white people, including those who aren't personally racist, are privileged by institutional racism” or “White identity is grounded in racism”.
Yes, by progressives - and don't start the "no true scotsman" fallacy please.
Also, your second statement maybe applies to the US, but there are many countries where white people are not the majority, or where there were virtually no other races than white. Saying that e.g. Norwegians or Italians are privileged by institutional racism is absurd. I am from a post-communist country that was always 99.9% white, saying that “White identity is grounded in racism” is absurd and of course totally racist.
> saying that “White identity is grounded in racism” is absurd and of course totally racist
Sticking my neck out a little, and leaving out my personal positions, I think you are interpreting "White identity" as "any identity held by people who are white", where dragonwriter meant something more like "holding White as an identity"?
I never asked for a white identity, but it is being applied to me by other people.
Any way you spin it, it is not ok. The color of my skin is my immutable characteristic, any derogatory statement about the whole white race will always be wrong.
The alternative interpretation I proposed doesn't say anything about anyone based on the color of their skin, doesn't say anything about the individual members of "the whole white race" where that label is assigned to them by others, and if we restrict "the whole white race" to those who voluntarily choose to identify as such then it only says something about that particular choice not the individuals more broadly.
You could reasonably argue that I have misinterpreted dragonwriter, that dragonwriter's interpretation doesn't match that of the other progressives who use the phrase, or that there are other problems with that interpretation (I don't, here, even endorse it). But your particular rant is off base enough that I don't think you understood it.
> Also, your second statement maybe applies to the US,
Since we are discussing a distinct American center-left faction’s position on domestic group relations, I don't know why you'd think the positions ought to apply to conditions elsewhere.
No, we are not. Progressivism spread from the US to the whole world long time ago. There is literally a party called Progressive Party where I am from that even adopted the "white male privilege" narrative even though, as I said, my country never had any racial minorities (other than jews, if you consider it ethnoreligion a race) or colonial history. It would be comical if it wasn't tragic.
If you are talking about a whole race of people, but you actually mean only a specific subset, then it is up to you to define the context, not up to the reader.
(And even in that case you will still probably end up with a racist generalisation.)
Same question regarding fake news: was your page full of actual fake news suh as "Elon Musk has died", or was it full of political speech you don't like, such as "wearing masks is not worth the inconvenience"?