Hacker News Reader

> Why should it be society's burden to deradicalize people?

Because your neighbor's problem eventually becomes your problem. Cases in point: Saudi Arabia helps 9/11 terrorists; US meddling in South American politics promoting fascists, death squads, and the War on Drugs fueling powerful gangs and cartels; Western-caused climate change refugees fleeing Africa, the Middle East, and South America; Dec 8, 1947.

> Does this work at scale?

No. It doesn't matter if something is difficult or not if it is a moral duty to counter. "I do not fight fascists because I will win. I fight fascists because they are fascists." ― Chris Hedges." It is a moral imperative for anyone and everyone in a potential capacity of mentorship to dispel and debunk faulty ideas that neighborhood youth get involved with. No one can be an island onto themselves and local community is essential (although all-but-dissolved in most modern city life). (Boston Marathon Bombers)

"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it" - The Friends of Voltaire by Beatrice Hall

When you start editorializing an individual's speech rather than debating them, it's a slippery-slope down the road to censorship and fascism. There are some costs to having an open society, like the risks of being open. You might hear some idea you might not like, or find absolutely repugnant. Having venues that can debate and debunk bad ideas with better better ones is preferable to preaching to the choir. Someone can't influence or the change minds of people they refuse to talk or listen to. Society will eventually come to a head if there become separate, hermetically-sealed ideological camps persist for much longer; this is a very dangerous phenomenon for social stability.

>Because your neighbor's problem eventually becomes your problem.

This is an argument for doing something, not necessarily for putting a burden on individuals to counter extremist and murderous ideology - especially those who are most likely to be targeted by it. It may be a moral imperative, but moral imperatives really are sensetive to a variety of individual circumstances to exercise, because they only work by way of moral obligations and moral responsibilities - both of which are only parts of rational decision making.

Someone who has had a strong past of experiencing racism may balk at the idea of starting a dialogue with an extremist whose entire ideology is founded on the view that he is not even worthy of consideration as a civilized person.

I firmly believe that most people lack the capacity of mentorship, or if they have it, then they are not terribly experienced with it. The fact that professional mentors take so much time and effort to nurture someone who they know is already receptive and still fail should be a testament to a significantly worse ability in the common person to do that, especially when, as I mentioned, communication is a two way street. What makes you think the mentors will be any less susceptible to radicalization than the people they are mentoring?

The biggest problem is that most people do not have the requisite knowledge to be such mentors. They may know racism is wrong, but maybe they can't explain it sufficiently well. They may appeal to humanity, but it may not get far to do so with someone whose ideology for the past two decades has been the fundamental inhumanity of the person they're talking to. Needless to say, all this completely leaves out the fact that I really don't think most extremists are keeping an open mind in the first place.

>When you start editorializing an individual's speech rather than debating them, it's a slippery-slope down the road to censorship and fascism.

Slippery slopes need to be justified, not merely supposed. The mechanism needs to be explained and the risk made clear. For example, the mechanism that one form of speech (like hate speech, defined stringently) can be banned. It is not at all obvious that this leads to other ideas being banned; the legislature, for instance, need not and generally does not work on the basis of precedent. Superior courts can override precedent. Similarly, the fact that a hate speech law can be abused is not a good argument; plenty of laws can be abused, including, say, anti-terrorism laws. This does not mean that anti-terrorism laws should be done away with.

>Having venues that can debate and debunk bad ideas with better better ones is preferable to preaching to the choir.

This assumes the debating and debunking works and wins out over rhetoric. We're not dealing with pure ideas, we're dealing with two forms of expression of those ideas: firstly, hate speech which is a generally non-argumentative and derogatory expression of the idea designed to be hurtful; secondly, speeches, texts, videos, music, etc. which combines rhetoric and argumentation. Debate does nothing for the first category. It may do something for the latter category, but it's unclear if it does so at the scale or effectiveness to satisfy the moral obligation you pointed out.

>Someone can't influence or the change minds of people they refuse to talk or listen to.

The point of the laws discussed is not to change peoples' minds, it's to hobble the spread of their ideas.

Let's not confuse or conflate the bounds of in-person speech, with printed or online content. These differ slightly.

> Similarly, the fact that a hate speech law can be abused is not a good argument; plenty of laws can be abused, including, say, anti-terrorism laws.

False equivalency, red herring, and two wrongs don't make a right. Laws can be written across a continuum of vagueness and precision. Laws must be continually updated and oversight assured so that policy underpinning is implemented in good faith and appropriately. Crafting particular words for a law alone is insufficient to accomplish the presupposed objectives. The real world doesn't work like that.

> What makes you think the mentors will be any less susceptible to radicalization than the people they are mentoring?

Did your professor allow this kind of crap to fly?

> This is an argument for doing something

You proved my point for me. Tragedy of the Commons makes everyone's responsibility no one's responsibility. No one else is likely to do something just because you talk about it but don't walk the walk. "Be the change you seek" because waiting for Godot is a terrible idea. Take ownership yourself and do it.

> Debate does nothing for the first category.

I suggest taking another look at history [0]; ethos, pathos, and logos; and, finally, hate deradicalizers, often former believers.

0: Rhetoric was a popular form of live entertainment for centuries, if not more. "The Most Famous Man in America: The Biography of Henry Ward Beecher" - Derby Applegate (2006) re: touring abolitionism speech performer, and his sister's book likely being one of the final proverbial straws that broke the camel's back regarding the Civil War.

Saudi Arabia, regardless of many other concerns in the Kingdom, has an entire department in the MoI that has processed thousands of now former Jihadi's. [1]

1: https://www.cfr.org/expert-brief/saudi-deradicalization-expe...

Dereck Black changed his mind after 2 years of Shibbat dinners. [2]

2: https://bunewsservice.com/can-a-white-supremacist-be-deradic...

> speeches, texts, videos, music, etc.

content

> hobble the spread of their ideas

Cartoons of Muhammed plus the Quran is better than burning and banning the Quran, because that reinforces an adversarial and underground dynamic rather than dialogue. Who decides which ideas are "good" or "bad?" You? Verizon? Dept of Safe Ideas? Censorship/hobbling powers never end well. "Absolute power..."

I think I'm done here because you've stopped listening and went off into the weeds rather than be honest.

>Laws can be written across a continuum of vagueness and precision. Laws must be continually updated and oversight assured so that policy underpinning is implemented in good faith and appropriately. Crafting particular words for a law alone is insufficient to accomplish the presupposed objectives. The real world doesn't work like that.

I very much agree; the law should be evidence-based and continuously under review to ensure scientific and philosophical argumentation gets a look-in to the results.

>"Be the change you seek" because waiting for Godot is a terrible idea. Take ownership yourself and do it.

I still agree that indvidual action can work well, but this says nothing of whether individual action is sufficient to accomplish the aims of the moral obligation you outlined.

>Saudi Arabia, regardless of many other concerns in the Kingdom, has an entire department in the MoI that has processed thousands of now former Jihadi's.

This is fantastic, but it does not prove the supremacy of individual action - it only proves that state counter-speech can work in certain instances. That's admirable in itself, and it can work very well. My only qualm is that it is unclear whether it should be the whole solution or only part of it. Naturally, I prefer legislation that does not restrict freedom - to restrict it as little as possible to accomplish the aims therein. However, this says nothing about the cases that fail, and the cases that fester. My point about mentorship has gone unaddressed - you proposed a system where people could individually take it upon themselves to persuade others, as an alternative to the state. I think it can work, but I'm still skeptical about the scale it can work at. You mentioned moral obligations, and you also said that difficulty is irrelevant to whether we should try our best to fulfill them. It seems here that freedom of speech and the moral course of action may be in conflict, doesn't it?

>Cartoons of Muhammed plus the Quran is better than burning and banning the Quran, because that reinforces an adversarial and underground dynamic rather than dialogue.

I agree! But I neither suggested banning the Quran nor did I even suggest banning Das Kapital - what I suggested was a restriction on hate speech. I think this preserves the thought/speech dichotomy, something which even liberals should be convinced of.

>Who decides which ideas are "good" or "bad?" You? Verizon? Dept of Safe Ideas?

It's not about goodness and badness, it's about harm. I'm not imposing some moralistic framework on law here (although that has been gaining steam recently). Rather, I am proposing that even if we abide by the harm principle and we keep up with modern neuroscience and philosophy, we end up with harm from certain speech. The legislature, through debate and consideration of the peer-reviewed scientific conclusions, will decide how the law should be crafted. The law will also be read over through special debate and involve the consultation of various interest groups, from the people it's supposed to represent to the legal scholars who are experts on the topic. I realize this is an 'ideal', but it's how I'd like it to be done in order to accept it. I'm sure that if you agreed with me, you'd have it done the same way.

>Censorship/hobbling powers never end well.

They do; an upstream commenter mentioned post-WWII Germany, and arguably threats, libel, child pornography, and assault work just fine. We have censorship, we don't have unlimited freedom of speech on any country on earth. The question is not whether to draw the line, but where to draw the line - something I argue should be considered through scientific and political debate.

Science, as colloquially understood, seeks to empirically validate truth - true things can cause “harm.” So which is it? Are you looking for censorship of untrue ideas as discovered through open scientific inquiry, or, are you looking to censor ideas which cause harm. You can’t have both.

Put that aside, first principles, how can you hold a robust scientific debate on a topic that’s censored? The historical and common sense evidence strongly indicates it’s not possible.

Yes yes, and these arguments were all well and good when we were young and innocent on the internet.

But those arguments rested on so many assumption that the internet has disproved.

“When you editorialize instead of debate...” for example - There are ways to configure sentences that they will parasitically thrive on debate, without actually being debated. Like a virus that targets the immune system.

This happens all the time - cranks, nazis, racists of all stripes will want to start a discussion on “IQ” or some seemingly innocent facet so that they can appear to be a victim and radicalize minds which don’t have an anti virus pre installed.

I forget the original saying, but agitators deign to argue with you. They don’t really think your ideas or rebuttals are material, instead you are simply a backdrop for them to perform their recruitment drives.

> it presupposes that free speech is so good and basic that it overrides all other rights.

Yes. Speech is not action :)

The fact that speech can be distinguished from action does not in itself provide a reason to prioritize speech over action. Further, speech and action share a number of commonalities that there are good arguments made (by Susan Brison and Frederick Schauer, for instance) that the categorical difference between them rests on a philosophical error.

When one censors 'speech' they are really censoring thought. We just call it speech because that's the highest-bandwidth and lowest-latency mechanism us humans have to exchange our ideas. Eumemics and eugenics are two sides of the same coin, and I am very suspicious of people practicing either of them.

>When one censors 'speech' they are really censoring thought.

This is incorrect; we would surely say that a hypothetical person who cannot communicate at all, only absorb information, has thoughts, even if he has no speech. Further, thoughts are abstract, quite literally figments of the imagination. Speech is concrete as something we do with thought.

Just because someone is prohibited from, say, shouting that Jews should be rounded up and shot in a Jewish neighborhood it does not mean he cannot think it or even express the idea in other contexts. Speech is expressive in that it takes an abstract idea and makes it concrete through the action of speaking. Only certain forms of the expression of that idea, in certain contexts, would be prohibited.

A baseball player will get in trouble for swinging his bat on a busy street. He may still swing it at the stadium without any trouble. The act of swinging the bat hasn't been prohibited, only its specific 'expression', provided by its context as determined by time and place and who is around him. The player has freedom of bat-swinging. We have freedom of thought.

The idea that speech is not action is a relic of the doctrine of mind-body dualism, in which the effect of words on a listener is so substantially different that they are deemed lesser harms, because they affect the mind, not the body. Advances in neuroscience and philosophy have put dualism in hot water[0]. The law in several non-speech related areas has for a long time realized dualism is false, such as with the issue of the insanity defence and voluntary manslaughter.

[0] https://scholarship.law.wm.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1... [1] http://www.susanbrison.com/files/B.16.-speech_harm_and_the_m...

Speech is action, the whole point of many words is to perform an action.

No. Weaponized disinformation is no more speech than an AR15 is a musket.

Modern threats require modern constraints.

> child pornography by being censored creates a taboo around it

Surely it's the other way around. It is censored because there is a taboo around it. The taboo comes first.