Big brother is watching you w*nk

Put it under fruit of the poison tree doctrine, perhaps? Along with rendering any cases or initiatives involved with it null and void?

You know I was literally tagging you guys because the people were using the classic "I'd like to agree with you... But you're a Nazi" tactics, but I should have expected you'd both actually have interesting things to say about the topic itself haha

We all need to get together at some point. We're a Brit, a Canuck, and Greatest-Country-on-Earth-izan, right?

Well if nothing else, it's BOUND to make Russia nervous

Then we need to find a Russian to invite

If Hitler said that water was wet, I couldn’t call him wrong on that, wouldn’t argue it wasn’t. But- I also wouldn’t re tweet something from Hitler either even if it was just “water is wet.” It is a thin line between agreeing with something a person says and giving them a platform and reinforcing their status as a person to be listened to. My schizophrenic grandma has said lots of wise or true things- but I’d be irresponsible and a fool to do or say anything that would imply that SHE specifically should be a source of wisdom.

Absolutely. If people are too incompetent to understand that quoting someone doesn't automatically make them a hallmark of all things wise and desirable, it's probably for the best we keep the truth from them. They are far too fragile, and it's so sad when their heads explode trying to do things beyond basic shapes and colors.
.
Also, once again, no one in the original post - or in our replies - made the point you are arguing against.

I'm lost. Are we Hitler?

I don't know anymore.
.
In the last few months I've been informed that I am a bigot, a racist, a sexist, an incel, a 12 year old boy, a victim of internalized misogyny, a gender traitor, a race traitor, a Nazi, a klansman, a homophobe, a joker, a smoker, a midnight toker, an extremist, an anarchist, a transphobe, an opressor, a right-winger, a liberal, and a partridge in a pear tree.
.
Usually these labels come immediately after I don't go "I'll blindly support everything you say! :D love me like the other ones, daddy" or something equally asinine

That is one hell of a collection of titles to amass, puts mine to shame.
In seriousness, sorry you've been under attack. I know that can get tired really quick.
Back to the subject matter at hand, are there any Russians on funsubstance we could invite?

Haha it's perfectly fine. Most of it is connected to cancel culture bullshit. I haven't been labelled a pedophile yet, which is impressive, because that term gets thrown around pretty fast and loose these days.
.
It used to surprise me more when it happened on HERE, but generally speaking I just find it funny. Just proves those people don't actually know what any of those words mean, and don't value the causes they're supposed to stand for.
.
As for the Russian thing... I don't think I've ever actually seen anyone say they were Russian on here before. Mia and demryn and f_kyeahhamburg are German I think, but that's as close as we get

Xvarnah: “You know I was literally tagging you guys because the people are using the ‘I’d like to agree with you but.... you are a Nazi tactics’

So @famousone, @xvarnah- do you both not even read what you wrote or reply to? @famousone- xvarnah mentioned Nazis. So I used Hitker as my example. I also didn’t call anyone Hitler. Your homework is once again reading comprehension. Xvarnah- you can’t even keep what you say straight? There is the quote. Where you brought up the relevant subject. I gave a reply- that nothing here says you can’t agree with a “Nazi” AS YOU SAY- but that agreeing with and quoting or forwarding a message from are not the same thing.

I actually never said you called me a Nazi. I said PEOPLE have. Famousone asked if we ARE nazis, which I took as a joke, and responded.
.
As for the reading comprehension thing... apparently you failed to actually grasp literally the entirety of my comment.
.
If Hitler says water is wet - and he's the first person to ever make that statement, or he words it in a way that gets through to people.... And you choose to deliberately ignore this revelation because you don't LIKE the man.. Refuse to give him credit for it.. That's literally 1) ridiculous and 2) erasing history.
.
It doesn't necessarily matter to me if a person is schizophrenic. I would still get their opinion on subjects they know a lot about. Would take their information with a grain of salt (as you should with everyone) but if they're on their medication, and if what they say makes sense, I wouldn't automatically discount them...

OR try to deny that THEY'RE the ones who said it. OR not pass that information on Because THEY said it. If they're right, they are right.
.
And we just fall back to the exact thing I said in my reply: people who cannot separate the fact that making a good point does not, in fact, automatically make you a good person, need to be protected from the world while we work on things like shapes and colors. And possibly reading comprehension I guess

Days late, but... @guest_ I would be irresponsible to leave a specific statement of yours alone. The specific claim I want to tackle is that "[there] is a thin line between agreeing with something a person says and giving them a platform and reinforcing their status as a person to be listened to." I will put forward the argument that there is no such thin line, and in fact the line does not exist. The two issues you bring forward are entirely different in nature. The positive claim that "Statement X from Person A is correct" is an entirely different claim than "Person A is an expert on Matter Y." The former merely acknowledges that Person A has made a correct statement, the latter grants that Person A is well-versed enough to be "given a platform," so to speak. We may, of course, enter the rather dubious psychological terrain of arguing that the former has the possibility of granting the latter given particular elements, something I will choose not to argue for or against since I am...

... not in any way versed in psychology insofar as social engineering. But I believe that even with this added element, we would not be responsible for granting Person A any authority over any topic that encompasses Statement X. This is a problem on the accuser's end, and so we are not burdened by any responsibility. Any attempts at saddling us with the bogus claim that we've made any claim remotely similar to "Person A is an expert on Matter Y" is easily dismissible. The specific construction of our claim may come to question, but if the argument truly comes down to semantics rather than the logic, then I think we already know who has the more solid argument in that instance.

I agree with you in principal that the two matters are separate, but where the two matters create a line is where they meet in reality. “Name recognition” and similar biases are well represented. Marketing is a braid field which covers many things including how to get a message to people, including people who normally wouldn’t listen or wouldn’t be responsive; and to have them digest that message and assimilate it. It covers ideas like how to work with peoples perceptions and common reactions. In short- it is an art of manipulation- you cannot change reality as such but can change the perception m of reality. While classes and degrees are dedicated to how to craft messages, writing, what words to use and connotations people will associate with them- even something as basic as color has a quantifiable link to human emotion and reaction- and what’s more- knowing these tricks doesn’t inherently grant immunity.

We make choices, subconscious and conscious decisions. Communication is a subtle art and very minor nuance can transform the message or add or subtract detail or imply or lead a recipient. As a meme on this site just today illustrated- the person who names Pixar films makes a huge salary. The name for “Cars” earned them a bonus of roughly 3-6x an average middle class wage.

It seems like a simple thing- “Cars.” Who couldn’t think of that? But as the old question goes: “what’s in a name?” Well- ally actually. A rose by any other name would smell just as sweet- but it might not be nearly as popular, and getting people to buy the “F^ck your mother flower” for their dearest may be a touch more difficult than the “rose.” For certain o suspect you’d find much less children named after the very same flower were it called such.

So the title “cars” is not particularly creative- but it is effective, and more than likely has many hours of research and data science behind it, focus groups and studies. It is likely one of a slew of names tested in such a way and experimented on for font and presentation and branding and such.

So when we say: “well as Adolf Hitler wisely once said...” several things are happening. Firstly- we are making a choice. Of any appropriate quote- this persons is the one we have chosen. Of any person who has said the same or similar- the one we want to make the “face” of the quote is this person. It could be a novel quote, or we may not know of another source of the wisdom- but regardless there is a very human and instinctual connection there between you and your message, and your message and the person you are quoting.

You aren’t explicitly saying “this person is trust worthy...” but you ARE by action saying that this person has worth as a source of information. You are saying that this person has relevant wisdom
In this particular area. Why would you bother to quote them if you didn’t think they made a good point, said it well, and had the wisdom on the subject? If you do not believe they are appropriate or capable of being a good source of information relevant to the subject and you are quoting them- there are 2 primary reasons.

1. You are quoting them out of context- takin. A statement made on a different subject or with a different conclusion and applying it to a subject that it can be applied to-
2. You are quoting them not as a source of authority- but because they agree with you. But- of the goal there is to show someone else agrees with you- you are making an appeal to authority. You’re using a known entity in hopes their recognition of r esteem or authority will be applied to your argument because that’s a logical fallacy common to the human mind.

You validate the person as a source of information. Yes, in nuance all people are valid on some information on unreliable on other types- but that isn’t how celebrity works. It is not a game of nuance. You take them, hold them up to a wider audience, and if you are a member of a group, in doing so you acclimate the group. They are not an outsider now. If I like you because you are a person I think is intelligent and wise and just a “good guy” the way human minds work- your acceptance or seeming acceptance of a thing primes me to be more open to it.

I admit there is some philosophy to the thing. I mean- if you order a bombing and that bombing kills 30 people- are you a murderer? Had you not done what you did- people wouldn’t be dead. We could say that order made it as sure as had you done it yourself. BUT- you killed no one. You didn’t make a bomb. Plant a bomb. Detonate a bomb. And- you had no idea that those specific people would be there. How can you murder Jane Do when you didn’t even know Jane Doe would be there? Bombs explode. It blew up. Not your fault if people were near it when it blew up no? Suicide? Destiny? Inevitable consequence of their own life choices which put them by your bomb at that very moment? But not you. You’re not responsible for their choices. You are innocent.

Personally- I subscribe to the first. I’d have to think very poorly of a man or have very good evidence they really are just a rock that speaks to believe that they could not be aware of the potential and likely effects of their actions. That or they did not think. Almost at all, and just blab without engaging their gray matter.

From a causal point of view, the scenario of ordering the detonation of a bomb and that of endorsing someone's statement are somewhat compatible. In the case of the latter scenario, I'll grant the idea that a great number of people will be led to believe that the endorsed person is a good source of knowledge. If the endorsed person is morally corrupt and goes on to manipulate people into committing some of the worst atrocities of human history, then we can use a causal analysis to conclude that it would have been better if the endorsement had not been made. Of course, this is rather specific, but I will make the claim that the moral responsibility of the outcomes in both scenarios are very different.

I'll use the bomb scenario to set up the final points of my argument. Let's say that we have Person C who orders the detonation of a bomb from a room with no means of observing the outside world. For the sake of the argument, we'll assume that Person C is the direct agent and is not being forced to deliver the order. From here, we have four divergent possibilities. The first is that Person C intended to harm as many people as possible. Here, we can claim that Person C has direct moral responsibility for the harm they caused since it was their direct intention.

The second is that Person C ordered the detonation with no awareness that anyone would be hurt. Perhaps they had it detonated in a mountainside, hoping that it would be far enough away to avoid damaging civilization, but it happened to be that a group of 30 tourists were walking near the bomb when it exploded. I will make the claim that Person C has no moral responsibility for what had happened, since it was not salient to them that there would be people near the bomb when it exploded. If Person C is unaware of the potential to cause direct harm at the time he ordered the detonation, it would be hard to say he had any harmful intentions.

So now let's assume that Person C wanted to kill or maim a very specific target, perhaps a single person or a small group. Our third scenario will be that Person C manages to accomplish this goal, but unknowingly harmed bystanders that they were unaware of. In this case, Person C clearly has moral responsibility for killing the targets, but is not morally responsible for harming the bystanders. Again, without the specific intent, we cannot claim that Person C shoulders the burden of wanting to hurt the bystanders.

The fourth is that Person C accomplishes the goal set out in the third scenario, but knows that others will be harmed by the explosion. The moral responsibility will lay totally on Person C, as in the first scenario, since it was immediately salient that they would bring direct harm to others with their actions.

Now, let's have Person B make the claim that at least one of Person A's statements have some truth value. Of course, if Person B knew ahead of time exactly how to manipulate people and worded their claim in such a way as to elevate Person A, then we can hold Person B morally accountable for Person A's rise to power (should it occur). For the sake of the argument, we'll assume that Person B makes the simplest claim possible, namely "Statement X from Person A is correct." If the intention of Person B is only to repeat a statement they found to be correct and named the person from whom they heard the statement, then Person B wouldn't hold moral responsibility, even if we use causal analysis to trace back from some future atrocity to Person B's claim. Person B lacks the intent to cause the future atrocity, and so escapes moral responsibility for what happened. This is precisely the same as the second version of the bomb scenario. If Person B's intent is to bring attention to the fact...

... that Person A made a correct statement despite Person A's predisposition to making false claims, then we have the third version of the bomb scenario. Person B is not morally responsible for anyone else believing that Person A is trustworthy, they are only responsible for accomplishing their specific goal.

This is where things become trickier to make additional arguments. Even if Person B escapes moral responsibility as long as they don't intend on causing harm with their words, is it just to believe that they would be responsible for the future harm they caused? My immediate inclination is to answer no, since I believe that justice shouldn't be proactive. Justice is best applied retrospectively or concurrently. We cannot claim that anyone is responsible for a future act of harm if they never intended for that act to come about in the first place, nor can we accuse someone of having such an intention in the future if they don't have that intention in the present or past. This is akin to an accusation of psychological flaws. We give the accused no way to defend themselves, and in doing so prevent justice from coming fairly. So no, I still hold that no one is responsible for the implied claim "Person A is an expert on Matter Y" when they make the basic claim of "Statement X from Person...

... A is correct."
.
I don't intend on saying that everyone should feel free to make claims similar to "Statement X from Person A is correct" with reckless abandon. The moment you consider the listener's psychological state, that becomes a salient piece of information, and so it becomes your responsibility as to how to communicate your claim properly. But that being said, it is ridiculous to claim that we can't perform basic attribution for people we find disagreeable. If the concern is that people cannot make the distinction between attribution and endorsement, then the problem lies in the education of the listener. Since that becomes a salient point, it becomes our responsibility not to control who we attribute statements to, but to educate the listeners so that they will be more mindful of exactly what they make of basic logic claims.

You do make some interesting psychological points, but it seems to be attempting to place false blame. I'll try to tackle a few things at once. The general claim "Statement X from Person A is correct" makes no claim to Person A's wisdom on Matter Y, so your example including "Well as Adolf Hitler wisely once said" is not an accurate representation of my argument. This is a semantics choice made by the hypothetical speaker that you constructed, and is no way reflective of the hypothetical speaker that I've constructed. But I'll ride this wave for a moment, let's change my speaker's claim to "Person A wisely told me Statement X." If the intention is to demonstrate a moment of wisdom and not to encompass Person A with an aura of wisely knowledge, then my speaker still escapes moral responsibility for what other people take of this claim as long as the speaker has no direct knowledge of the listeners' mental states. My speaker may still have yet to clarify what they mean or otherwise...

... educate their listeners if they become aware of the misunderstanding, but this does not place them in any worse a place than before. Without the intent to mislead the listeners, my speaker is not blameworthy for the listeners' misunderstanding of the claim.
.
To address your two numbered points, I'll revert back to my general claim. The first point is circumstantial. If Statement X is indeed a statement that has fallen victim to quote mining, then my speaker can be faulted with misrepresentation. They still would not be morally responsible for causing any perceived harm as long as they are not aware of the mental state of their listeners, but it is dishonest enough that we can assign my speaker with the fault of misleading others. That is about as far as we can take the responsibility without any more information relevant to the specific incident.

I don't believe I fully understand your second point. It seems to be to be an accusation of claiming to avoid use of authority while discreetly wanting to use authority. In this case, this is simply the speaker lying about their intended purpose. This is an entirely different issue, and is not relevant to my speaker or my arguments.
.
You claim that the "action" of saying something is making the implicit claim that "Person A is an expert in Matter Y." I don't believe that this is in any way tenable. Simply because people will reach that conclusion through psychological flaws and manipulations doesn't imply that that's what the speaker intended to do. That is what the listener assumes you've said, and as I mentioned before it becomes a salient point to educate the listener on your actual claim and not a false claim.

You are well spoken and well thought. I am enjoying talking to you. I can’t fault your logic on our scenarios too deeply- but there are some faults I see in the set up, and I am not trying to get pedantic and pick at details because while I appreciate your precision, sometimes we do have to infer, and we all sometimes mis speak- myself included which we will get to later. For now- our scenarios.

We cannot assume a room with no view in our general example- because we aren’t speaking from a void into a void. We may not know exactly who we are speaking to (although on platforms like twitter and other social media we do have some idea as we have followers and names and such) but we do know that we are putting ideas out into the public consciousness. We know people will see it, and we know that theoretically a large percent of the planet has potential to see it. We know (or hopefully know) the histories and social issues and such of the subject we are talking about- and hopefully the surrounding and historical context if we feel the need to speak in a public forum our opinion on the matter, is hope our opinion was well formed. Most folks don’t go outside naked and caked in filth- so when we know we address a general assembly- we should be at a minimum of preparedness.

I’d like to question scenario 2. If person C detonates a bomb on a remote mountainside and 30 people are walking through- person C is likely in deep poo. Person C had an obligation under most any law, and I personally believe morally, that when engaging in a potentially dangerous activity where a likely outcome such as this could be foreseen- to ensure the site was clear and take all proper precautions to maintain safety while conducting their business. Were we to assume we are instead talking about a “pocket dimension” or such where non reasonable expectation of other people would be there- we are now reframing the original context of the discussion- as we have every reasonable expectation that when we place something on a public forum- especially one like social media designed around the concept of reaching people- that people will be there when we “set off the bomb.”

Words are perhaps the leading cause of death in much of human history (hyperbolic colorful phrase- no source and not meant seriously but to convey the idea that words have great power.) We have a responsibility wether it is a gun, a bomb, a power saw, backhoe, whatever it is- we have a responsibility to recognize the dangers of any tool we use. We can’t possibly foresee any harm that could ever come from our words or every idea. We can’t be expected to live so carefully as to
Never do harm or potentially do harm. The “diamond monk” who vows to take no life, not even a bug. Through ancient wisdom lives only on water- not even killing a plant, and takes 20 years to walk to the front gate so careful are they. then finds out that their body massacres micro organisms all day long. We can reconcile it how we like- but no matter how careful you are you WILL do harm at some point from someone’s perspective

But that is the thin line I speak of earlier. Balancing just living, trying to do what we want with our lives, and hopefully trying to make the world better at least in intentions- and the fact that we will do harm, and the more careless we are- the more likely we are and more often or severe. Opposite the monk is the man who traipses through beautiful flower beds oblivious or without concern, who shoots down everything of beauty he sees simply because he wants to it he can. Neither is a good place to be in my opinion, and I believe that to be backed by fact, but that is subjective and broad.

As to the clarification of my second point- and this may be where I used the wrong word- I didn’t go back and check my exact phrasing, if I didn’t I am sorry. I did not mean that it implied a person was certifying the speaker as an expert or person with expertise. I meant that it implies the person is implicitly verifying the person they quote as someone who should be listened to- considered in authority at the least in the matter at hand. Why would I quote someone on economics of I didn’t believe that they were a person who should be listened to on at least that facet of economics? But- again- this is where the perception of the listener comes in- most people will lose the nuance between certifying one single view on one single facet of an issue- and the entire issue, and from there it is a slippery slope to just a person with good ideas. When the persons ideas are generally bad- that’s not a good thing.

And admittedly- that is philosophical. I personally feel that if you are speaking to a known audience then you can trust them discretionally- providing you are of sound judgment- which on that the proof is in the pudding and can change by the moment. But I suppose, much like America’s founding fathers (wisely) didn’t, much like pretty much every world government of note in history- I don’t trust the unwashed and unknown to be smart enough to not have that be a problem when addressing an open and wide audience.

As my long ago mentor said- if you approach the situation under the assumption the other person is not very intelligent, you can only be pleasantly surprised; and if you adapt as understanding is confirmed, you can meet at theirs or your own potential. But you won’t be disappointed and you won’t find yourself adrift in stupid problems.

And to be clear- I am not saying it is NEVER ok to quote a “problematic source.” It’s very contextual. I would not quote Hiro Hito in a debate on Korean culture unless I was doing so to illustrate the wrongs he did or to show him wrong etc. and even then it might be not a good call. But as much as I hate communism- if Marx made a good point about supply chain management I MIGHT quote him in a meeting on the topic- although again- questionable.

Because these people have baggage. That’s probably the most important part. The new age word is “triggered” but there are people who are so traumatized or disgusted by certain figures- that any relation to them is enough to either cause distress or countermand the point of your argument on the grounds of a perceived association.

Now- I can’t expect you to know that little Lucy who is browsing Twitter once saw her uncle kill a squirrel on a Gumby themed towel and if you quote funny she’ll lose her marbles on you- but.... a noted hate advocate, a mass murderer, a war criminal, a person on a human rights watch list or a terrorist watch list... these people, a sound mind can connect the dots and say “hey, brining this persons name into things is probably going to stir up the pot and detract from the actual matter at hand.”

So it’s often largely counter productive except to stir controversy or for the sake of being salacious and grabbing attention; and morally I have problems with it in many contexts. Stalin said some wise things. But- Stalin was a mass murderer and a genocidal jerk off. We can compartmentalize those aspects of the man. But- many people- especially those with a close and personal attachment to the matters of his transgressions- simply cannot.

I believe firmly in logic. But- when speaking of a general group of humans, no logic which does not consider emotion and human nature can be sound logic, because it does not accurately reflect reality. If the work to get the answer is wrong, the answer is likely wrong or right by luck. What’s more- logic is just a consistent system. What we weight it on matters. It’s certainly pragmatic to say we compartmentalize these things- but we aren’t inherently pragmatic in that sense. Pragmatic instincts and drives combine and flow through complex structures in ridiculous ways.

So in concept I do not see an issue with quoting and attributing pragmatic people. So if it is not an issue in concept there must be situations in which it is not a problem. But in practice, how we do it, why, who we quote, on what, who the target audience is, the topic, the relationship between these things- they create a sort of test to wether (I believe) we SHOULD do so.

And in context to this discussion- I do not think that platforms like twitter are the place to do it in general. Most people do not read and write such lengthy comments as these. That’s not the flow of these platforms. Their nature is to take what is a snippet, a single frame of film and tell a movie. And so that is where I see the problem. Not necessarily in a thesis or a report or a chat with fiends around the table- but when we toss out a sentence or two and a quote from a person who is dangerous in their ideologies. When we “quote of the day” Pol Pot like some sort of Yogi Guru telling you to live laugh and love.

And the “viral” nature of these things- the “shares” and “re posts” and such- takes each step further from context. It becomes, for many people, the first or only impression of this person. A sound bite. An introduction to a person who seems to be pretty with it. We reframe them, soften them. And some people in my opinion shouldn’t have their image softened.

But the evils of the past aren’t so far gone for those who saw them, or were removed from them by very little time. There are things we cannot allow. Things we cannot have, and things that should not get a foothold in our society. Some ideas deserve to be stamped out. Some ideologies deserve to exist as just evil. And that is a slippery slope. Maintaining free speech, not erasing history, not white washing it, and not breeding distrust through omission or lie- it’s a hard road to walk and I don’t have all the answers.

But the broad and general- Tl:dr I could give would be- if a quote and or attribution would expose a seriously problematic persons name to a wide and unknown audience, if you cannot or do not properly frame the source, and if the use would hold that PERSON in a positive light or frame of reference, then I’d say it’s probably not right to use. Otherwise in 50 or 100 years “George the mass child rapist of Mariner Valley” becomes “George the troubled economist.” I don’t want these people erased.

I believe we need to make sure they are forever, until the end of human times, enshrined in the piece of s€it hall of fame. The more minor and topical ones can fall off, but the major ones need stand forever as both a reminder of what can happen so we don’t repeat it, and so that we know the only legacy for human garbage is to be spat upon and dismissed. That nothing you do will have power to change the world behind galvanize it against your cause.

In closing, as noted human garbage Adolph Hitler, an expert on such things as being full of s€it and horrors once said: “He alone who owns the youth, owns the future.” In 2020 his words still reach the youth. Those who wield them have become experts of subversion and subtlety, plausible deniability, normalization and indoctrination. There is a danger there. It’s all very nuanced and complex I grant you. And what do I know? I’m some guy on the internet quoting Adolph Hitler.

I'll argue that my bomb scenario can still be directly applied to a person posting a message on social media. When we post a message, we aren't seeing how it affects people in real time. We are shut out from a world of strangers' reactions, and for those of us who are not followed by a few active users, we fail to understand if or when our posts will bring about any effect. We are blind to its results until much later, usually through reactions that are posted *after* the post has had its course. For those of us with a rather large following, the impact can be rather immediate, but that does not indicate that that we can directly observe the effect nonetheless. We are only experiencing a fraction of it, since the effects we're aiming to analyze will be entirely within the minds of others. We may have the means to make an inference as to what the effect is, but we won't have any means of directly observing those mental results.

As for my second bomb scenario, I will concede its hypothetical construction is rather weak. We can still assign moral blame onto Person C if we declare that he was negligent in preparing the detonation site, in whichever specific context we use. The second scenario would have been strengthened if I declared that Person C was given no reason to believe that anyone would be nearby, and that chance had it that people either found or forced their way near the bomb.

Most of the rest of your arguments are interesting, and none I disagree heavily with. In a messy environment that is often the case, attribution should and must be done carefully, but perhaps my main point of contention was in the moderate cases of attribution. Disagreement with a speaker is no grounds to not correctly attribute statements to them, but any additional concerns from mere exposure are certainly points that, when salient, are of the utmost importance to consider. There is no reason to not quote a controversial figure such as Ben Shapiro if your only reason is that you personally disagree with his philosophy, that you find his worldviews offensive, or that you think he smells funny. But, as you mentioned, there is every reason to reconsider whether you would like to quote Hitler if you are unable to put in words the specific information required to divorce authority from attribution.

I rather like you. Thank you for this discussion. You have brought some interesting points and civil discussion. Even where I disagree with you, I can’t fault your logic (beyond the mutually agreed upon but by no means held against you scenario C.) I would agree with you that we shouldn’t completely erase a person or ignore them because we (or in the age we find ourselves) find their words or acts problematic. “Alexander the Great” and other conquerors of old are held often in pop culture as aspirational figures- and I have to think that in their time- perhaps they were not so well loved by all. But history would, in my opinion, be the less were they “erased” in their day and denied to the future. We can’t pretend things didn’t happen, we shouldn’t. And I’m glad you pointed out Shapiro.

The real danger I see- that I didn’t get to address in all my verbosity on other issues- is that who decides what is dangerous, what is contextually appropriate? Is Ben Shapiro a “dangerous radical”? Some would say yes. But we need not look further than McCarthyism or the civil rights movement to see that the label of “dangerous” can and often is applied to people history holds in favorable light, people with wise words and advice worth listening to- or at least considering for ones self. So I acknowledge that my own stance is more theoretical than practical- as it’s easy to say “this is bad and needs rules. The rules are someone else’s problem...” which is basically what I was doing since I don’t have the answers to the stickier points of where we should and shouldn’t apply any sort of restriction to information or freedom. I know posting DIY plans for an atom bomb and supplies/suppliers probably is too much information... but...

I think we have to take it case by case, and as much as it can be hard- have faith in society to work out some agreements. I think like so many things, a critical point is that we shouldn’t vilify those who in good faith step slightly outside the bounds of what society decides is appropriate. As we work out the “lines” that shouldn’t be crossed we have to leave room for the controversial and for people to learn where those lines are without being thrown under a bus for stepping over society, or our own, lines. You’ve given me much to consider, and some places I need to re examine my thoughts on this. Thank you, and hope to speak again soon.

I'm glad to hear (read?) that you enjoyed this exchange. Thank you for participating in kind.

Some extremists started talking, and citizens who had issues with the extreme progressiveness of the society (as well as other factors) were all it took for a regressive conservative extremist group to take the country and form the Iran most people know today- almost completely different than the country it was a generation ago.

Crazy people, extremists, can say things that make sense, are true. The danger isn’t in accepting truth in their views. The danger is in validating the individual and in the slippery slope of subversive ideologies. That is quite literally a recruitment tactic used by terrorists and white nationalists. They usually don’t start with “let’s blow up the federal building” when meeting new potential conversions. They start more innocuous- more sane. They say things that make sense and appeal to the emotions of those they feel most likely to successfully be converted. Like a Nigerian email scam- the “nibble” is the first sign they may have you.

The “test” of wether they are wasting their time is wether or not you bite, engage, or forward their reach. People who may not know who they are or what they stand for, or who may have heard this or that- are then exposed to them when you spread their word. They say: “gee- they don’t sound half bad. I like what they have to say and my good friend so and so seems to read them and they aren’t a bad person..” It’s normalization.

People who grew up with the Confederate flag see is as a normal part of life. People who grew up in places where the N-word are used don’t see it as a problem. People who grow up in cultures where women serve men tend to see that as normal. It works with people too. When you give people a platform and accept them into your life, it has a disarming effect. None of us are “on guard” for manipulation 24/7.

Suppose that explains how BLM and Antifa got where they are now.

BLM is a movement- not a person, I will assume you knew that. But organizations can be subverted. The government is full of smart people doing smart things, and full of selfish or ignorant people doing otherwise. Antifa are textbook extremists and an example of a dangerously leftist group who fits this discussion. BLM could become a radical movement but their issue and politics aren’t extreme. They want society to focus on the several decades long issue of black people being killed by cops- or the perception of it of you prefer. I believe the leftist extremists you meant in this case are rioters and such who aren’t part of BLM but use its flag while doing harm? Would it then be your view that any flag which any wrong has ever been done under, should be buried and that it actually represents destroyed?

If BLM's leaders weren't racists and marxists, with a hell of a lot of overlap with Antifa, you might have a point.
They're crossed that line.

Well yes. But no. You simultaneously completely grasp the idea yet completely miss it here. There is “BLM” the official organization, and BLM the slogan of a decentralized group. So we must first be very clear which we are talking about. When someone says: “Black Lives Matter” they aren’t a Marxist for it, and it isn’t Marxist ideology. As to the point of this whole post- hopefully everyone can agree regardless of who is saying it- that yes. Black Lives do matter and yes, the unjustified killing of anyone is wrong- especially by our public servants.

But where you grasp the idea but I believe Miss it- is that at least one founder of the formal institution known as Black Lives matter, is a self declared Marxist. So the message that black lives matter is one that is worthy of agreement and support, but the the individual themselves may not be a person who should themselves be made a symbol, as they have made known that their intentions are to reach the masses and instill extremist views through subversion and absorption.

In other words- personally I wouldn’t “re post” her messages or cite her as a source of authority- but it generally goes without saying that one should be wary of counter cultural movements which essentially incorporate themselves. There’s ALOT of complexity and nuance there- but if we just take at face value that she is a Marxist, and as she’s stated intends to spread Marxist ideology- I would stand for the cause of black lives mattering but I would not stand with her on the cause.

That is the prime distinction. Who we make our allies. There are those who have the same goals as us, who are fighting the same fight, but we do not stand with them. Soviet Pick one of the many conflicts where we’ve backed a horse simply because “the enemy of my enemy....” we put Sadam in power and gave him and Bin Laden the tools and training- because we were “in the same fight” until we weren’t. Just because someone is fighting the same fight as you, or agrees with you on one specific set of issues- doesn’t mean you should empower them.

So understand that when I said “BLM aren’t extremists” I speak of the MOVEMENT, and not the organization- which I thought I made clear by mentioning the distinction in the post, but on re reading I see the ambiguity. BLM the ORGANIZATION is... an organization. That complicated things quite a bit- but if you believed that we don’t support individuals or organizations because of their ties or their problematic aspects alone then you wouldn’t likely have said half the things you have defending POTUS against the left would you have? By that same standards we would say that regardless of what justifications exist or goods we want to attribute- that the man has problematic ties and aspects. But you don’t believe that those alone are enough to condemn him no? So it is a bit more complex.

Where wholesale allegations of racism and such get thrown around- are that it is more than convenient- it is a documented aspect of human psychology that we give a “pass” to that which seemingly violates our moral codes when we agree. The gun debate is a perfect example- those who stand to ban guns would likely not stand for a freedom they support to be curtailed, and those who defend gun ownership on the grounds of constitutionality or genera freedom often stand against freedoms they don’t support or wish to use like gay marriage or equal hiring or legalization of certain drugs and so on.

So what is telling isn’t when someone says “this group/person has a problem...” it’s when they elect to support others with philosophically identical problems but give them a “pass” on practical or ideological grounds and justifications, but select one specific violator to be singled out, or a pattern of identifying flaws in entities with aligned ideologies. What we see form isn’t a quest for right, but a behavior rooted in the desire to suppress that which we disagree with.

The enemy of my enemy is my friend. Until they burn down my hometown and threaten the lives and livelihoods of the locals, my family and friends amongst them.
Nevermind that BLM seems to deliberately obfuscate the issues whenever they have actual broad support. We on the right and libertarian spectrums were widely for reform in Floyd's name, until they expanded the issue to defending violent criminals and burning cities.
Let it be known, while BLM and Antifa are burning cities that had nothing to do with anything, exactly zero people who were responsible for the laws, policies, training practices, hiring, discipline, and management of those officers that killed George Floyd have been fired. None have been charged with crimes. No policy has changed that would have substantially altered that situation. No one in leadership has indicated that they will even attempt to change the culture of that problematic police department.

So there is the nuance. I’ve said much about trumps failings. I’ve also admitted to not liking him on a personal level. I’ve also defended him when people have posted outrageous or blatantly false things about him. If you check older comments- I’ve also said plenty about Obama, his pushes for ethanol and other moves that were simply “taking care of his own” and such. I’ve also defended him against factually untrue statements.

The right isn't racist, largely does not care about who marries who, is against racist hiring practices that discriminate against whites and asians as much as ones that are against blacks and Latin Americans, and you'll find that except for the neocon "Never-Trump"ers, we largely want the war on drugs to end.

Balance. Realism. Clear your eyes of the filters by which you view the world. Clear yourself of the “us vs them” binary mentality which often underpins your words. That is when people will listen to your words without already agreeing with you or without needing to be coerced or indoctrinated. I am sure that it is comforting and much simpler to see the world in states of one or the other, to just group anyone into a few categories. But... the world is more complex. If one doesn’t even see the world as it actually is- then ones views on the world will be delusional, based on a construct that doesn’t reflect reality.

I never said the right is racist, I said that as an example- you’ll often find some of the same people who are for gun freedom to be against those things. Say I am lying. Show me I am lying. My words are true, but they require a reader to read them and understand the language. I also said you’ll often find the left would not be fine with the removal of Other freedoms which they prize. For that I did not have specific example beyond perhaps what we are talking about here and was listed. There was no implied bias to the statements and they were true. With that behind us and no longer relevant to the discussion- on to your other replies.

“The enemy of my enemy is my fiend until...” yes. That’s my point. UNTIL. And when that until is all but inevitable... what kind of fucking idiot would you be to support that? Churchill wanted to give the Nazis guns and march on Russia since we are all enemies so we must be friends. But what are the fundamentals of Nazi ideology? Of German Nationalism? If you support a fundamentalist or an extremist as your friend... they will grow stronger with your support- and you KNOW their agenda is contrary to your own. You’re creating your own more powerful enemy. There are multiple books on strategy and tactics, classics like the art of war, works by Maynard Keyes, and so on. For both your world views and your profession I would recommend reading some, preferably with some guidance to help with comprehension and exploration perhaps.

On a personal note and separate from the discussion- as per my previous conclusion- you think two dimensionally by default when you are in a reactionary “autopilot” and the world is not only 2 dimensions. You are enjoyable to speak to when you are able to transcend these limitations- even when we disagree. When you are stuck in 2D mode, you are a shadow of what you are capable of and it just makes it a chore.

I'll always side with the future enemy in the face of a present existential threat, like the threat that would've been posed by a Soviet Middle East and South America.
If we could've struck a mutually satisfactory deal with the Nazis, why not join them against the Soviets who were worse by every metric?
On another personal note, don't worry about my profession. As much as you think I'm looking at it two dimensionally, that's because I am. On one side you have criminals, marxists, anarchists, and racists all rallying to do violence in my neighborhood, on the other you have my constitution, my creed, and my family. Things I hold in equally high regard above any man or God. It's personal.

I don’t worry much in general, so you have no fear for me worrying on your profession or whatever else one might be concerned for my worries, although I appreciate your concern. As for the rest- it’s a common mistake to take the very true reality that sometimes we are forced by necessity to make quickly and decisively for an immediate goal: and then conflating that to mean that rash, reckless, and thoughtless decisions are the mark of an effective and decisive person. They are not. To the contrary- decisions made for immediate gain without consideration to future events are the mark of a person who shouldn’t, and usually isn’t, put in charge of or trusted with making any sort of meaningful decisions.

But to the actual subject at hand, I am having trouble reconciling what your actual stance on the matter is, to e frank it seems like you are just being contrary- that is, whatever I say you will debate it wether you agree or not, simply for the sake of disagreement.

So to clarify, are you saying that:
BLM as an organization fits our example above as an organization that shouldn’t be supported or spread because of its subversive agenda; and that no other extremist and subversive organization should be likewise.
- that you don’t care for BLM but to you, it doesn’t matter what the particular politics or ancillary issues are, what methods are used- as long as you agree with the outcome
-other?

Because you bring up BLM as a Marxist organization you don’t support because people who identify with the ideology but aren’t part of the organization commit crimes- but then you say that of you support a cause that you would back someone who you disagree with because they are enemies of your enemy. Which would imply you would support BLM of racism was your enemy- but you also talk about how BLM wants to kill your family and friends(?) and so... they are your enemy. Which would imply you’d be on anyone’s side as long as they were against BLM.... but then if you think it’s “right” for people to support people who do wrong their they have the same enemy... then you can’t think that it is wrong for people who are enemies of racism and not effected by looting to support BLM.

I mean, you literally said you’d support Nazis to fight the Soviets. That’s not me putting words in your mouth. That’s a quote. Two problems I see- at the time that was an option- the Soviets hadn’t begun committing mass murder of their great scale, and their crimes were largely unknown in this area. So they wouldn’t be practically worse than Nazis. Second problem... the implication here would be....

Were you in 1940’s Germany, and had no Jewish friends or family... you’d have no reason to not support the Nazis providing that they did well by you. In fact we’re you a citizen in good standing- the terrorist actions of resistance fighters and the allies, the destruction of your property and the deaths of friends and family... by this logic.. would make the allies your enemy would it not? And couldn’t we say the same for the early revolutionaries? Would you have supported the crown based on your present politics- against terrorists causing civil unrest and killing your friends and family, taking livelihoods and property from you?

To be clear and before you start the well rehearsed “HE CALLED ME A NAZI!” Self victimization thing- I did. It call you a Nazi. I said that if we examine these beliefs as you have stated them- what we are left with is a system devoid of morals or ethics and stemming entirely from popular jingoism of the time and place, and self service. There is no integrity to the beliefs. And I am not saying you lack integrity. I’m saying you’re either pulling shit out of your ass to justify things, or you actually don’t really understand your own cognitive process- or can’t admit it. You come pretty close to it. Admitting that what it is about for you is “personal”- the personal implications of whatever is going on in the world.

But if it is really that simple- there’s no sense in confusing the issues and crafting complex justifications. You do t need to cloak your personal feelings in grand politics and try to give them validity with philosophic waning that doesn’t stand up to scrutiny. You can just say: “I don’t like this. I do like this. I don’t care about these people and their problems, or at least not as much as I do about mine. I serve the master which feeds me from the hand, I like my life and don’t want anything to endanger what I have no matter what that gives others.” It is a valid if unpopular response.

Now dont misunderstand- I think it’s generally valid to have views other than my own (some things aren’t relative to opinion however- gravity for example.) That said- not even science is sacred and above challenge. But if one wishes to contest gravity- there are processes and logics one must observe to validate a conclusion. Your logic is faulty. I have stated how. We can graph it if you like- I already mentally have. You have on your paper “1+1=1.” The odds that the answer reflects reality when the method to achieve it is wrong... possible but slim- but you certainly can’t expect others to honor that answer if you can’t demonstrate a reliable way to produce it right?

So you think BLM is “bad,” and that which you think is “good” coincides with that which is good for you. There are no grand politics or philosophical ideals at play there, it’s just called “self centered thinking.” And that’s a valid state of existence. It often works well for those who use it. At least for a time, and with proper implementation.

Were in 1940's Germany I'd likely have fled, died, joind a resistance, or like the majority of Germans at the time, been pissed off at the world and desperate for a future.
Were I born Artyom Ivanovich in Soviet Russia, then I'd have likely have been a Red Army soldier, or KGB, GRU, what have you.
Were I born in Colonial America leading up to the Revolution, I'd likely be very conflicted, but my loyalties would've been largely determined by upbringing, depending on whether I'm a wealthy subject of the Crown, a colonial upstart trying to rise above my station, a fur trapper, or a guy who simply sides with whoever doesn't threaten my family.
I, like most peoples in most places, am a product of my environment and upbringing. Maybe I'd have an inherent sense of liberty, or desire for violence, or to be generally left alone. Or something else entirely. Depends on what's nurtured and what's taught.
As things are, I stand with my Constitution, my chosen creeds, and my family.

You're making this a nature vs nurture thing. I'm saying that BLM is hostile to my chosen values, poses a direct threat to my family unit, and does not genuinely care for racial equality, but is in fact opposed to America, rule of law, libertarianism, and the communities they get involved in.

And... there you miss the point again. They are not hostile to America or such and such- they see those things as different than what you want them to be. The America that I grew up in, the one that I cherish, is the America spoken of in “New Colossus”- or as most people know it- the quote from the Statue of Liberty that is actually an entire poem and no one ever quotes the entire poem. So your idea of America, and my idea of America- they overlap in places but we aren’t talking about the same thing. I speak of a country that never stopped being great but has stumbled here and there, had self proclaimed patriots lose their way and twist the idea of the constitution to a document that says they’re supposed to get their way, and not one that applies to everyone- yes. Even non citizens. That’s in the constitution- the document that defines the framework of what America is in words.

As for nature vs nurture. No. I wasn’t saying if you were born as a German in that time- I was saying f you right now we’re forced through time to an alternate dimension to Germany with all your friends and family- and things went the same way, that your philosophy would have you joining up to fight the allies.

If you actually followed it. Which means you’re probably right- you probably wouldn’t fight for them- because you wouldn’t follow your own philosophy because when you know it’s bullshit that you’re pulling out of your ass with buzz words you’ve heard used by people better st stringing together words to make a point. I’m saying the logic you outline is faulty, but it can be whatever you want it to be in the moment to justify whatever decision you’re going to make- which is the decision based on what you’ve said here- best serves you and your self image as a real live rebel badass independent type. It’s fluff, bluster, a bed time story told by the self to the self to sleep soundly. That is what I was saying.

So I am exiting this discussion because there are 3 possibilities.
1. You’re just trying to be contrary- aka trolling, intentionally or not.
2. You lack either the ability to articulate your logic process, or your logic process is as demonstrated based on your own words- faulty.
3. It’s self delusion.

If it is 2, there’s nothing more to discuss because you lack the tools.
If it is 1 or 3, there’s nothing more to discuss as intentionally or intrinsically I cannot convince you otherwise as all I have are facts and logic, and you have no interest in those where they contradict your world views. You will not convince me otherwise because I cannot and will not live in a shared delusion. We can simply leave it at, as you say- your primary concern is simply that which pleases you and that which does not- the rest is arbitrary to your decision making process. If you reply, I likely will not see it, you cat explain the sky to someone who refuses to leave the cave.

I see where I made syntax errors, but I fail to see where the gaps in communication are on my end.

We’ve gone over this in other posts. Your statements often conflict themselves, and reality often conflicts your statements. Perhaps a week ago we spoke about federal agents in Portland- if you recall- I told you that such acts would lead to escalation. Here we are in the present, protestors wore respirators so they shot rubber bullets. Protestors wore vests so they shot for the head. They wore helmets; you’ve got guys using leaf blowers to turn the feds weapons against them. This past week saw the largest turn out of protestors yet.

“That’s old news. Why are you bringing up another topic?” Because it’s relevant. Like a cold reader, you can throw spaghetti at the walls and ignore all that doesn’t stick when you statistically inevitably get something right- but even today you’re going on about riots and such- even when confronted with fact that you are wrong you just put your head down and push the same line, or pick up a new angle and try again.

And that same thing happens within a single conversation, but can also be seen as a pattern across multiple conversations.

I’m not saying these things as put downs or attacks. I am saying them because you say you don’t see the issue when the issue is right there, and it’s been discussed before. You get frustrated, or at least express frustration such as in other posts where you bemoan the inability of others to accept views that aren’t their own- namely your views. I want to help with that problem.

The issue largely isn’t people not wanting or being able to handle the views you present- it’s that they are either phrased or inherently against the reality of most any rational being. You put a lot of trust in yourself, you don’t require other people or experts or even a majority of qualified people to back what you and anyone who thinks like you sees from personal observations before it becomes fact to you. But you see- it isn’t an insult or slight against you that most people, especially relative strangers, aren’t going to put their faith in you to the extent you have. They may want some actual proof or data to indicate reality aligns to your perceptions.

And when that proof is contested, addressing the issue raised with the data or presenting alternate data to validate and meet peer review criteria goes a longer way than opinion. That self confidence we spoke of a moment ago- has you often state opinion as fact, personal experience or subjective interpretation as singular truth.

But to be frank, when the horses you back keep losing, or when a quick fact check can destroy major pillars of your logic, that self confidence doesn’t appear to be well earned, it then seems like bluster. Chicken little syndrome- made worse by the binary views we have spoken about before. You tend to have the settings: “all” and “nothing.”

And that’s fine and valid if you want to live your life that way, but you have a choice to make when you communicate ideas, because the only people who respond to all or nothing thinking tend to be the desperate and those who think in terms of all or nothing. To the rest of us- an all or nothing statement is obviously missing 100 degrees in the middle, it has huge blind spots.

As mentioned in other threads- if you show your work and the way you cake to the answer is wrong or missing big chunks, your answer becomes very suspect- it becomes likely that any right answer or true statement isn’t by skill or knowledge but by luck- or that is at least the perception of most unless a skillful con is used. But even if one assumes the answer can be right without being able to show how- you can’t instruct another person on how to get that answer f you cannot explain how you came to it can you?

Probably one of the most blatant areas of miscommunication on this thread specifically- is simple refusal to admit fault where demonstrated; or to address and refute the points where fault is seen. In other words- it’s not a discussion. It’s circular. I say my thing, you say your thing. I say “actually here is why that doesn’t add up...” you say... your thing. I say: “you didn’t actually respond to what I said or asked. But your reply had these faults,” you say... your thing. And on we go.

Attrition is a valid strategy if that’s what you are going for, but to work the person must be able to be ground down. I am not generally. Many are not. So it isn’t a great default to use if your goal is exchange of ideas or persuasion.

So, example: let’s say that I tell you that I believe all Banana thrives should be locked up because they are 400% likely to become cucumber molesters. You say: “that isn’t true. These studies clearly show that isn’t the case and banana thieves with intervention have almost 0% recidivism.” And I say: “nope. Senator Les Grossman said that....” and you say: “Les Grosman has a degree in retreading tires and also says the moon is made of seagulls. Also- Les Grossman never said that. Here is the interview being discussed, watch 3:58 when he allegedly said it. He does not.”

The logical thing to do there would be what? Probably to either defend my position with counter FACT or admit that I made a judgment based on bad information. If the information used to make the conclusion is wrong... the conclusion is likely wrong no? So we either have to satisfy burden of proof, or we have to examine our logic, not double down on it. That would be a better way to communicate with less difficulty.