Massive GREEN Step for Reddit

[Epikur]

6 minutes ago, Moon said:

lmao

dangerous minefield/ mindfields

[Forestluv]

7 hours ago, JosephKnecht said:

A statue is an attempt to solidify the image of a hero who in the times which he/she lived fought for that which society believed to be just. But society changes, and so does justice.  

Of course. 

7 hours ago, JosephKnecht said:

If you can't decide who draws the line, then don't draw the line. 

From an ethical perspective, this collapses. It would be like telling abolitionists “If you can’t decide who ends slavery, then don’t end slavery”. Just because something is challenging to do and there is uncertainty on the details of how to do it, doesn’t mean that it shouldn’t be pursued. With this mindset, no great achievements are possible. It preserves the status quo.

7 hours ago, JosephKnecht said:

Sites like Reddit, Youtube, Amazon have gained monopoly power over the way we communicate. If they gain the power to censor communication, eventually they might seek power to control what, how, and when we communicate. 

Of course there are concerns. With any progress, there are concerns. With the abolition of slavery, there were concerns. What would happen to the freed slaves? There were many concerns about their welfare. 

In terms of the concern you raise, yes of course mega corporate power is major concern. It’s is all inter-related. I’m a proponent of breaking up mega corporations, removing the influence that corporate lobbyists have on politicians and raising taxes on the mega wealthy to address the problem of unbalanced power structures due to wealth inequality. 

7 hours ago, JosephKnecht said:

One of the reasons why the Internet is so successful and prevalent is because it doesn't censure any communication. The internet protocol allows for complete freedom in human expression. There is no "hate" in bits of information. Every bit is equal to every other bit. The hate is only in our minds that perceive hatred. You can't eradicate hatred by censuring speech but only by changing human perception. 

That is true in one context, yet there are other contexts. If an online group forms to promote child pornography and molestation, that is not an example of a “success” of not censoring anyone. From another perspective, that is a failure. As well, those “bits of information” showing child pornography and instructions on how to molest children are not “good or bad” from one perspective. Yet that is just one perspective. From the perspective of child molesters, those bits of information are “good”. From the perspective of parents that don’t want their kids molested, those bits are “bad”. From the perspective of children that would undergo the trauma of child molestation, those bits are “bad”. 

This would be like saying “A coin is neither heads nor tails. And the heads side is neither heads nor tails”. The partial truth the coin as neither heads nor tails does not nullify the partial truth of the heads side. 

“Every bit is equal to every bit” is just one perspective. It is one construct. That statement is true from within that construct. Yet that construct is not externally, universally, objectively True because that construct has contrasting constructs which are also Truth. 

[Leo Gura]

1 hour ago, Akemrelax said:

I can’t believe you don’t know this.

Eugenics and race and IQ has a huge audience online.

 

A race-baiter in the White House: Obama LOL

- - - - -

Well, that certainly seems to violate YT's 2019 policy:

Quote

YouTube began cracking down on supremacist channels in June 2019. The company issued updated rules prohibiting “videos alleging that a group is superior in order to justify discrimination, segregation or exclusion based on qualities like age, gender, race, caste, religion, sexual orientation or veteran status.”

 

[Akemrelax]

This ones gonna be funny.

 

[Forestluv]

Molyneux is saying YT has erased all of his thousands of videos and billions of user comments. Yet that would seem like a stupid move for YT. If YT erased it all, they would be letting go of some of their power. Suppose they had to go court proceedings. Those videos and user comments could come in handy. 

[Leo Gura]

3 minutes ago, Serotoninluv said:

Molyneux is saying YT has erased all of his thousands of videos and billions of user comments. Yet that would seem like a stupid move for YT. If YT erased it all, they would be letting go of some of their power. Suppose they had to go court proceedings. Those videos and user comments could come in handy. 

Regardless of his white supremacy ideology, I can still empathize with him about his whole channel getting wiped out. That's a huge sting.

[Parththakkar12]

I await the day the White House gets renamed to the 'Technicolor House' or something to not be offensive to any color.

Edited July 1, 2020 by Parththakkar12

[Forestluv]

4 minutes ago, Leo Gura said:

Regardless of his white supremacy ideology, I can still empathize with him about his whole channel getting wiped out. That's a huge sting.

I watched Stefan’s video of talking to his viewers. It was clear he was deeply stung. He talked about how this was 14 years worth of his work that has been destroyed and erased. From his perspective, he is doing work that can help and advance humanity - just like how I may perceive my own work. I can empathize with having 14 years of work my erased.

In a way, it reminds me of your video about reproduction. That having children isn’t the only way to reproduce ourselves. That we can reproduce ourselves through works of art and creativity. In a way, this is a more powerful mode of self reproduction. One’s genes gets diluted with each generation, yet one’s creative works don’t get diluted. The Mona Lisa by Leonardo Da Vinci is more Leonardo Da Vinci than his great-great-great-great-great-great grandson would be. From this perspective, losing one’s creations is losing a reproduction of themself. 

[Forestluv]

15 minutes ago, Parththakkar12 said:

I await the day the White House gets renamed to the 'Technicolor House' or something to not be offensive to any color.

It’s not just about being offensive. It’s also about harm reduction. Stefan strongly stressed nonviolence. He prided himself in getting his points across in rational, nonviolent means. He sees himself as a great philosopher. I think this shielded him somewhat from getting banned. He can use the frame of “I’m not advocating violence. If you ban me, you are censoring me for intellectual philosophy you find offensive”. From one perspective, I can see that and I think it’s an important point. We need to be able to have discussions about social issues. Yet from another perspective, “harm” is not limited to physical violence. Harm is a nuanced, relative concept  that has many forms. I can also see the perspective that he was causing harm. Yet it gets tricky, imo. 

[TrustTheProcess]

2 hours ago, Leo Gura said:

Regardless of his white supremacy ideology, I can still empathize with him about his whole channel getting wiped out. That's a huge sting.

I can see that, but you can't be saying dumb shit like "races are subspecies and whites are genetically superior" with that massive of a platform... you know how many 15 year old kids will see that and think "wow, this is objective proof that black people are dumber than whites"... That is how radicalization happens. the fact that he calls himself a philosopher/intellectual too.... yt made the right move imo. I don't feel that bad given the harm he was doing. 

Edited July 2, 2020 by louhad

[Forestluv]

14 minutes ago, louhad said:

I can see that, but you can't be saying just say dumb shit like "races are subspecies and whites are genetically superior" with that with that massive of a platform... you know how many 15 year old kids will see that and think wow, this is objective proof that black people are dumber than whites... the fact that he calls himself a philosopher/intellectual too.... yt made the right move imo

Along these lines, Stefan can come across as very intelligent, rational and philosophical. He can reasonably be perceived as a credible authority on the topic by those that are not educated in this area. For example, his use of genetics is often partial truths and misleading. Yet to someone that hasn’t thoroughly studied genetics, he can come across as an expert / authority. This greatly increases his persuasiveness. Stefan is not like Alex Jones who is obviously batshit crazy.

As well, another effective way to mislead people toward ones agenda is to have a mixture of truths and falsehoods. If there are too many falsehoods, you will start to lose people. This is commonly seen in conspiracy theories. Those theories have to have a considerable amount of truth mixed in to keep the story credible and the other person engaged. 

[Parththakkar12]

14 minutes ago, Serotoninluv said:

It’s not just about being offensive. It’s also about harm reduction. Stefan strongly stressed nonviolence. He prided himself in getting his points across in rational, nonviolent means. He sees himself as a great philosopher. I think this shielded him somewhat from getting banned. He can use the frame of “I’m not advocating violence. If you ban me, you are censoring me for intellectual philosophy you find offensive”. From one perspective, I can see that and I think it’s an important point. We need to be able to have discussions about social issues. Yet from another perspective, “harm” is not limited to physical violence. Harm is a nuanced, relative concept  that has many forms. I can also see the perspective that he was causing harm. Yet it gets tricky, imo. 

On a serious note, the part about harm-reduction is true. If I were an ideological leader/philosopher, I'd advocate for a progressive ideology any day over a conservative ideology. The progressive ideology is the one that advocates for social evolution.

Having said that, my Stage Yellow part would want to integrate the fringe-philosophies and understand the perspectives involved. The point is to recognize it as part of Myself as opposed to letting the separation remain. This I'd do in my own personal life, I wouldn't publicly teach about it as it's too nuanced for the masses.

[Forestluv]

14 minutes ago, Parththakkar12 said:

Having said that, my Stage Yellow part would want to integrate the fringe-philosophies and understand the perspectives involved. The point is to recognize it as part of Myself as opposed to letting the separation remain. This I'd do in my own personal life, I wouldn't publicly teach about it as it's too nuanced for the masses.

Depends on the fringe philosophy. I don’t have time to learn about, contemplate and integrate every fringe philosophy - just like I don’t have time to fact-check every fringe conspiracy theory. Anyone can make up absurd theories, there are thousands of them. I’m not going to dedicate my life to studying, contemplating and integrating thousands of absurd theories made up by bafoons, simply because it is a theory. For example, I don’t spend time studying, learning and integrating Alex Jones’ theories. That is a fool’s errand. I’ve got better things to do. 

[Roy]

58 minutes ago, Leo Gura said:

Regardless of his white supremacy ideology, I can still empathize with him about his whole channel getting wiped out. That's a huge sting.

@Leo Gura I used to watch people like him before he went off the deep end. Now I'm not even surprised, I'm actually kind of pleased. He deserved it and he knew this was coming for years.

What I don't understand is it's not like these people are stupid. They see it coming from miles away and they just stubbornly double down on their ideology, in this case he just started to sound more racist and crazy ever year.

These "independent" media guys are so insistent on endlessly antagonizing their political opponents and fighting "the left" that they will slowly delude, compromise, and contaminate their higher values as long as they maintain the appearance of being scientific and factual. I think a huge part of the problem is the way YouTube functions and is monetized, everyone is reliant on keeping their echo chamber in tact or and if they stray too far in developing themselves or displease their audience in any significant way, it starts to crumble everything they've built up. And god forbid they lose some money trying to become better people in the process! Can't have that!

It's almost like a mind virus. We are seeing the absolute toxic limits of Orange, and they'll be left behind in the dust as footnotes of society improving itself, even if the improvement seems sloppy and goes back a step or two just to take 5 steps forward.

Molyneux knows better. Maybe he is unconscious to a certain degree but he's intelligent enough to know you shouldn't get away with pushing and stretching the edges of free speech with racist useless rhetoric like he did.

Of course out of his own immaturity he locked his mind in a bubble and threw away the key. Hard to be sympathetic to someone like that.

[Leo Gura]

I appreciate his commitment to non-violence. He is a cut above right-wingers like Alex Jones, etc:

 

[Leo Gura]

21 minutes ago, Roy said:

@Leo Gura What I don't understand is it's not like these people are stupid. They see it coming from miles away and they just stubbornly double down on their ideology, in this case he just started to sound more racist and crazy ever year.

The thing about how worldviews and ideology works is that one is a true believer. One feels entitled and fully justified to one's worldview by definition.

Quote

I think a huge part of the problem is the way YouTube functions and is monetized, everyone is reliant on keeping their echo chamber in tact or and if they stray too far in developing themselves or displease their audience in any significant way, it starts to crumble everything they've built up. And god forbid they lose some money trying to become better people in the process! Can't have that!

I don't think he was corrupted by money in this case. He's just a true believer in his ideology. He does not recognize it as an ideology.

Quote

Molyneux knows better. Maybe he is unconscious to a certain degree but he's intelligent enough to know you shouldn't get away with pushing and stretching the edges of free speech with racist useless rhetoric like he did.

He doesn't see his worldview as useless or racist. He sees it as crucial and scientific/realistic.

All this just boils down to a difference in worldview. And all worldviews are relative.

The whole problem of racism is that racists never see themselves as racists, they see themselves as realists. It takes deep self-reflection to recognize one's own racists justifications as self-biased. This requires radical openmindedness and painful self-honesty.

Being a philosopher, Molyneux fell into the trap of turning his philosophy into an identity which he is now committed to surviving and reproducing. It's not about money for him, it's about his pride and his identity. He's a very idealistic guy. Personally I wish him well. I think he has a good heart, although of course I don't agree with his ideas on race, IQ, and the superiority of Western European culture. He simply does not understand development psychology or how consciousness evolves.

Banning someone like Molyneux might end up backfiring moreso than banning someone like Alex Jones. Molyneux is someone who could be debated and reasoned with. Driving this stuff underground could be like sweeping food under the kitchen rug.

[Epikur]

19 minutes ago, Leo Gura said:

The thing about how worldviews and ideology works is that one is a true believer. One feels entitled and fully justified to one's worldview by definition.

I don't think he was corrupted by money in this case. He's just a true believer in his ideology. He does not recognize it as an ideology.

He doesn't see his worldview as useless or racist. He sees it as crucial and scientific/realistic.

All this just boils down to a difference in worldview. And all worldviews are relative.

The whole problem of racism is that racists never see themselves as racists, they see themselves as realists. It takes deep self-reflection to recognize one's own racists justifications as self-biased. This requires radical openmindedness and painful self-honesty.

Being a philosopher, Molyneux fell into the trap of turning his philosophy into an identity which he is now committed to surviving and reproducing. It's not about money for him, it's about his pride and his identity. He's a very idealistic guy. Personally I wish him well. I think he has a good heart, although of course I don't agree with his ideas on race, IQ, and the superiority of Western European culture. He simply does not understand development psychology or how consciousness evolves.

We both had the talk about opportunists. He is a case where he doesn't look like an oportunist. 

If a compassionate brainiac like him has these wrong ideas (though every worldview is relativ) then how much chance has a normal guy to understand the truth of the progressive idea?



 

Edited July 2, 2020 by Epikur

[Extreme Z7]

6 minutes ago, Leo Gura said:

He is a cut above right-wingers like Alex Jones, etc:

Just as puke is more preferable to shit, I guess.

As long as the channels being banned aren't overwhelmingly moderate conservatives, I'm pretty happy about this. They still get to have speech elsewhere, of course: elsewhere where there's less moderation. The more mainstream channels need to have higher standards of content. You can empathize all you want with all his videos being taken down but that ignores the kind of effect those videos had to the minds of an unwitting audience and potential future viewers. Not as bad as Alex Jones's influence but that's a very low bar to hold standards for.
 

10 minutes ago, Leo Gura said:

I appreciate his commitment to non-violence.

Don't forget non-violent far-righters like Ben Shapiro and Lauren Southern have been mentioned in shooter manifestos before. Doesn't mean they should get banned for it but it should at least cause them self-reflect a bit on their views. I think it did Lauren Southern a bit because she recently came back with more moderate centrist views recently.

[Epikur]

Kyle thinks that it is an intentional distraction. He doesn't seem to be emphatic about cancelling "media racism". Kyle is floating slightly away from the left?
 

 

[Extreme Z7]

38 minutes ago, Leo Gura said:

Banning someone like Molyneux might end up backfiring moreso than banning someone like Alex Jones. Molyneux is someone who could be debated and reasoned with. Driving this stuff underground could be like sweeping food under the kitchen rug.

Ehhh. . .

Thing is. . . Molyneux's channel has sorta gone past its prime. He's hardly had much of a dedicated fanbase compared to other conservatives. Even the leftist channels have largely ignored him in recent months. I can see a case being made if it were somebody like Steven Crowder or Ben Shapiro who still have large followings. But Molyneux's banning along with other prominent far-righters are only going to be really weaponized by far-right viewers and libertarian ideologues.

I don't think the general public cares if someone can be reasoned with. They only care if the speaker is popular enough and seemingly likable enough to them. Becoming mainstream enough for enough of the public to defend you is the name of the game here.

Edited July 2, 2020 by Extreme Z7