To me, Parler has equivalencies
- AWS linked to calls for violence that were made on Parler
- The platform was actively suppressing non-conservative viewpoints
I would recommend looking at r/ParlerWatch on Reddit
On one hand you had ISIS posting beheading videos. On the other you had grandmas posting selfies in the rotunda.
Yeah, there are some nutters out there. But to claim that everyone caught up in the tech purges is somehow equivalent to ISIS seems a bit rich from my perspective. Even if you accept that some of these people are genuine domestic terrorists, reasonable people should be able to distinguish between rogue elements and ISIS, an organized terror state.
This is a bit like the claim that everyone who entered the Capitol Building was a terrorist. These are wide generalizations that only serve to confirm partisan biases. For me the use of these fallacious comparisons is illustrative of the problem at hand, toxic divisiveness.
Absolute free speech would have to include ISIS, a group that would (and has) killed people for what they say.
If you admit that absolute free speech leads to illogical and impractical consequences, then the only remaining question is where to draw the line.
Reductio ad absurdum is a rhetorical tool, not a logical fallacy. It's goal is to show that your argument is absurd, because the absurd statement follows from the argument you are making.
>I find myself wondering where these people were in 2014 when all the major social media platforms systematically removed ISIS accounts...
Perhaps these people didn't object for the reasons I described above. ISIS is nothing like the Capitol Hill demonstrators.
Sitting in New York, nutters who came within yards of hanging the Vice President, Speaker of the House and potentially several Senators are a far more clear and present danger than mullahs in the Middle East.
Furthermore, if we accept the narrative of the WoT and that there was a legitimate threat to politicians, there's still a wide swath of difference between the two. ISIS is a real threat endangering, killing, maiming and torturing an entire region. They carried out indiscriminate attacks on civilians across the world. A few nutters threatening to lynch some politicians isn't that.
Conflating the two ideas is an example of how toxic rhetoric has become. Yeah, you can turn on MSNBC, CNN or even the BBC right now for validation of those narratives. You could also turn to those same media outlets for justification for the war in Iraq or crackdowns on civil liberties during that same period. The new war on domestic terrorism (read dissent from establishment politics) is similarly worth a critical look. Especially if grandmas with thermoses are to be lumped in with dangerous extremists.
Successfully prosecuting rogue actors for plotting to use violence against politicians isn't the same as establishing equivalence with ISIS. Nor does it allow one to generalize about the content of the entire group of protesters.
There were some protesters who expelled rogue actors while accusing them of being "antifa agitators". It wouldn't be fair to cherry pick the worst actions of the group and generalize. The comparison to ISIS is an extra leap that I hope needs no further elaboration.
Sure, we could argue that "terrorist" is the wrong word to use here, but if we used another word, such as "criminals", I would guess that you would still make pretty much the same argument.
And talking about "toxic divisiveness" while defending people trying to overthrow an election? Are you even listening to yourself?
I notice many comments will start with, "Although I dislike Trump..."
The fact that comments need to begin with such a disclaimer is illustrative of the atmosphere we find ourselves in. A comment should stand on its own. Disclaimers shouldn't be necessary.
Yes, the atmosphere we find ourselves in is horrible. But I would argue that the "post-truth" strategy used by trump & friends is the main reason for this.
When it is so common to be intelectually dishonest, those disclaimers are needed, and with how easy it is to misunderstand people on the internet, I think that those disclaimers are something positive, people really should add "/s" when being sarcastic as an example.
How would you suggest one should handle dishonest liars on the internet? Personally I think that one should call them out on their lies, but everytime that is done, someone, (in this case, you), come along and call it "partisan hyperbole"...
From this point it isn't hard to understand how high emotions seem to be running. It isn't uncommon for otherwise rational people to project irrational ideas onto a discussion. This is especially common when emotions are running high. The tribal instinct seems to be one of our most base emotions.
The distinction is that I don't presume malice. Instead, as trite as it may sound, I try to work from a place of compassion.
Simply blaming the other side (RE: Trump & Friends) appears to be part of the problem here. The anti-Trump partisans appear just as emotionally irrational in my view.
Perhaps I am privileged in that I don't identify with either side, or approve of their policies. I will say that it is hard not to have sympathy when I see someone irrationally attacked.
The mob mentality is palatable. I think it was George Carlin who made a famous observation about the intelligence of the 'average' person, then concluded that half of the people are somewhere below that.
But as someone who values democracy, I have to be honest about there being a huge difference between the two american paries, especially since trump. (But arguably since nixon).
Sure, I agree that there are lots of emotions everywhere, and people are attacking trump & followers for both valid and invalid reasons, but using the invalid ones to smooth over the valid ones is in my mind (atleast) as bad as the irrational attacks.
To go back to an earlier post in this comment chain, this is the reason why I think that starting a post with "I dislike trump, but.." is a good thing, so that one can criticize the irrational attacks without smoothing over the rational ones.
Also, I don't think intelligence has much to do with this, but rather:
https://thereader.mitpress.mit.edu/how-cognitive-bias-can-ex...
People don't have to be less intelligent to be victims of media manipulations. Carlin, the American comedian was being glib.
I'm something of a news junkie. I observe the drama in the same way others might watch a daytime serial. From this view, I have to admire the craftsmanship that goes into spinning and developing media narratives, the way they expertly play upon the heart-strings of the masses. Often times the viewers are all too willing to indulge their outrage. Putting aside the concept of intelligence entirely, the masses who have little time or curiosity to observe the news in-depth, are poorly matched against the master propagandists. They've had decades to hone their craft.
As you say, you're concerned about the status of democracy in the US. Yet here comes the new narrative of domestic terrorism, buoyed by the same fears expressed in this thread. The masses are outraged. The image of Trump as a Hitler-like figure has been burned into their minds by repeated invocations of Godwin's law. After repeating this ad nauseam, Biden now proclaims that Trump is like Goebbels,
“You say the lie long enough, keep repeating it, repeating it, repeating it, it becomes common knowledge”
Even I have been called a Nazi for challenging what I see as irrational. Posters here have insisted that I check my privilege in regards to race. All of this without knowing my identity, race or experiences.
While I share your concern about civil society devolving, I see it as coming as a reaction to Trumpism. The intolerance is easy to see from where I stand, and I'm no fan of Trump. The comparison to ISIS is part and parcel of this intolerance. I find it somewhat ironic that you appeal to valuing democracy (I read that as civil society) while indulging the assumptions and fears I've outlined above.
https://www.politico.com/news/2020/09/26/joe-biden-trump-jos... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=brgZSzmAA3c https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BnA-ghhW_WI
I know that you are never ever supposed to compare someone with nazis, and if you do, you automatically lose. But isn't there a point where someone can act like a nazi to the degree that it becomes dishonest to not call them a nazi?
When trump repeatedly lies about the election being stolen, is it really that far-fetched to make that comparison?
I can fully understand that you dislike that people on the internet compare trump supporters to isis supporters, but using that to make the both sides are the same argument is really farfetched.
America has some serious problems, and it's democracy is really flawed, but it is still a democracy. If you want to mend the country you can't have half the country living in an alternate reality. Truth isn't something you can compromize away just to avoid being "partisan".
Since you used the words watch and viewers in relation to news, I can recomend:
From that point, you can't argue using evidence. Widespread delusions are more powerful... 'Truth' or at least the will to perceive and the perception of it has become highly partisan.
In regards to censorious intolerance, both sides are not the same. We are supposed to value democracy, (tyranny of the masses?) yet we can't trust individuals to consume or digest information without hand-holding from partisan fact checkers. If we are concerned about democracy, this should be problematic. These are themes of technocracy, not democracy.
It isn't important to me to establish equivalence. That's not what I am working towards here. I'm attempting illustrate what I see as mass hysteria, widely held delusions. The Hitler comparisons, a common form of hyperbole are part of that.
And there was definitely suppression of non-liberal viewpoints on many sites.
I don't agree with most conservative views, but I am not so tribal and blind to irony that I think it's ok to apply different standards to one side vs another. "But they are different!" - says the blindly loyal team player.
Your argument is extremely disingenuous. You can read through AWS’s complaint against Parler and see some of the shocking content they refused to moderate.
That completely depends.
1. If the stated goal of the platform is onboarding for terrorist organizations, then that's a completely different situation.
2. If the platform is open, but known to be used as a main recruiting platform for such an organization, then I also don't think it should be shut down.
I hold the opinion that the only successful way to navigate to stability is education, open discourse, and constant discourse. The more in society that ignore other thoughts because they are convinced they are unequivocally correct on what's right or wrong (minority or majority) the more unstable society is going to be as they are driven to view everyone who thinks differently as the problem instead of searching for better answers.