If we are truly building a society of tolerance, whether or not one has a visceral reaction to an idea should not stop whether or not one can discuss and debate it. I'm not a neo-Nazi, but I've talked at length with them about their views. I will give anyone a few minutes to explain what they are about, try to listen to it neutrally, and form my own opinion. My personal conclusion of neo-Nazism is that it is a way for white men that feel they have no economic opportunity to blame a convenient target, and they try to rationalize Nazi Germany's domestic infrastructural successes as a reason why the country was doing what was right. I think it is a prime example of scapegoating, and I find it violent and hateful.
If we are paying lip service to tolerance and acceptance of alternative worldviews to make ourselves feel like better progressives, we are doing our views a disservice and acting more hypocritical than those that blatantly wear radical views of censorship and discrimination.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_tolerance
Twitter has to choose between upholding the ideal of tolerance (4Chan is a good example of this) and trying to create a community of tolerance by running off the intolerant crowd.
I don't think there's a happy medium in this case because the alt-right seem to really like disrupting conversations that are inconvenient to them (instead of just tuning them out) and Twitter's short-form messages make that extremely easy because the conversations are so disjointed and often misinterpreted to begin with.
> the alt-right seem to really like disrupting conversations that are inconvenient to them
That's aggressive behavior, then. I'm defending the alt-right's ability to use Twitter for expression and talk with themselves, and with people that have shown interest in their ideas. If they're off brigading every source they disagree with all the time with harassment and memes, that's a different issue, and Twitter should be wielding the banhammer in an egalitarian fashion on all groups behaving this way (per the views they hold themselves to.)
I don't think this was an outright purge of the alt-right, just those they saw as ringleaders of abusive brigading. Alex Jones and other big names from that group are still out there doing their thing.
>Twitter should be wielding the banhammer in an egalitarian fashion on all groups behaving this way (per the views they hold themselves to.)
Absolutely.
Unrelated but I have a sneaking suspicion the alt-right will break with him anyway as soon as he starts focusing more and more on conspiracies about Trump.
I can't speak to the particular accounts banned by Twitter, but the alt right have a carefully developed vocabulary designed explicitly to sneak across that boundary.
In this statement, you are unilaterally making a rule as to what ideals are OK to hold as part of "civilized society", and where the boundary is. Stating your society is more "civilized" than another is an opinion in and of itself, and arguably those who hold views opposite yours likely think your societal views also contain hints of barbarism or offend human nature.
There are multiple ethical views that humanity and even this culture have held throughout the past century alone that the predominant society has now decided are reprehensible, that other nations consider reprehensible, and then there are also views that have been considered reprehensible now widely accepted by this culture.
Personally, my beef is not with whether or not people agree or disagree with these views; the argument in this subthread is external to my original message:
I'm tired of the Valley's progressive ideology consistently espousing acceptance, free organization, and free speech when we as an industry keep taking steps that seem against it when we disagree with the information provided. It is the message of social media: people should be able to communicate and unite worldwide. If we aren't radically upholding this belief, then we need to change the mantra to be aligned to what it actually means: associate with us, our ideas, and our worldview, and we will give you a voice. If you don't, your voice on this platform will be stripped, even if you are not engaged in attacking those that disagree with you.
I don't agree. "Kill all the X" is a hate speech and, depending on context, a threat of violence -- we already have tools/laws to act against such, so there's no need for more censorship.
Why not? If we silence them on few webpages, you think they simply will disappear? Trump as a president should be the wakeup call for everyone that forced, artificial politeness and political correctness won't make problems disappear.
Does it make any sense to push the fringe away and offline when we can let them expose themselves and then monitor them?
You could say the exact same thing about literally any view and it would be equally true.
(Maybe you think I'm trying to say that all ideologies are equally valid, but I'm not. I'm just pointing out that that particular comment is so reasonable-sounding and hard to argue with precisely because it doesn't actually say anything of substance.)
By this logic, Twitter should ban pretty much any ideology.
I don't agree with Neo Nazis. I hold Neo Nazis with the same contempt that I hold feminists. Why not apply the policy for all hate groups?
For example, in Australia we refuse to acknowledge the approximately 25% of violence and abuse by females within the household. The worst case statistic is NSW ("Twice as many female victims (19,488) as male victims (9,261) in New South Wales."). Not one of these victims is given a voice! http://www.abs.gov.au/ausstats/abs@.nsf/Lookup/by%20Subject/...
Also check http://www.oneinthree.com.au/
You will see that men who are victims of domestic violence are turned away from support groups. This doesn't surprise me as there is an aggressive campaign to ignore male victims from media, government and community support groups.
I conducted a Google search from 2015 to determine that 100% of references in the Australian media stated that domestic violence was a "male only" behaviour and the only victims represented were female. I checked over 2000 references! In other words, 2000 of 2000 references represented one gender with relation to violence.
If you listen to Cassie Jaye (the feminist who created the documentary The Red Pill), she says that feminists in media refuse to acknowledge male victims because it will take money away from female victims. In other words, if you are a boy or a man who is beaten or abused, feminists insist males get no representation or support. It's almost a complete media kibosh throughout the western world. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=itSTzV29bS0
So, why is Twitter not banning prominent feminists? or, why isn't Twitter banning all media outlets who support such hateful messages that insist that some victims of violence should be ignored? This is a fundamental breach of human rights! You can't get much worse!
Check media references for an absence of any of the following, 80% of suicide victims are male 25% of domestic violence is by a female 90% of incarceration is male
You will also notice that Cassie Jaye said she was suppressed by feminists. Cassie also said that she was advised by feminists not to represent any issues that impact men. This would explain the media suppression across all western countries.
If you're going to ban a hate group, why not include feminism. It's certainly one of the biggest and most active groups today and actively violates human rights. I've given plenty of pointers in this single post alone to build evidence.
There is almost universal silence from the overwhelming majority of feminists on this topic. It's a sad indictement of the overwhelming majority of the feminist movement. Check media, documentaries from 2016, support groups, even discussion forums. The message is consistent and it consistently breaches human rights.
So, should Twitter ban hate groups? If you really must silence hate groups, then ban them all. And like you, I dislike spending so much of my time fighting hate groups like feminism because there is no impartiality on the topic. How extreme do you need to get before people will speak up?
I had a recent conversation w two feminists where I pointed out a fact as reported by Harvard that women are getting paid less because they don't negotiate.
I hadn't even made a comment on the underlying reasons and two women jumped all over me.
They lumped me in with the root cause, made simplistic comments like "oh so it's the women's fault!" and challenged me to start a class teaching women to negotiate.
While I don't think that's a bad idea, it's BS to put blame on me and challenge me to do more than they've done because I'm a successful man that owns a few companies.
Over half my primary company is women and if you asked any of them they'd say I'm the best boss they've had and I empower them to succeed. I trust them. I've also changed a life by hiring a homeless person. I take chances on good people making career changes.
I've got a small company of about 20 employees and a bunch of contractors. I've done more for women in business than both of the 2 feminists combined. Yet I'm the bad guy. Funny they consider themselves liberal and do little for their causes.
It's absolutely ridiculous how feminists push blame and are so divisive. They think everyone is out to get them. Facts mean nothing. They want to talk about prior injustices and ignore the first "why".
Merely pointing out the fact that women don't negotiate means you think it's women's fault to feminists. I recognize we've gotten here for a variety of reasons but if business rules currently dictate you need to negotiate, maybe learn to negotiate and use research from industry experts to tell a compelling story and make more money.
Sure there are asshole sexist males out there but the women I know that know negotiation are on par with men.
Feminists also ignore how women treat other women in business. Throughout the companies I've worked for and my own, something like 95% of issues with coworkers involved women with other women.
The problem is, liberals are vilifying Trump supporters for exactly that, being focused on other issues instead of social justice. They say that it doesn't matter that you disagreed with Hillary's liberal policies, putting conservatism over social justice makes you a complicit racist.
And sometimes the people the majority thinks are being intolerant will end up being right.
Bottom line though: look at all the intolerant societies with no real framework. They don't fare well. The Founders of the US Constitution believed in unalienable rights for a reason.
Her supporters act like she was squeaky clean. When I chatted with them they had hardly no knowledge of her or Bill's checkered past.
I've heard people say she lost because she's a woman. That's like the QB throwing 4 interceptions and saying they lost because the kicker missed a field goal.