Aswad
Posts: 9374
Joined: 4/4/2007
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Politesub53
No point naming names but this is certainly a result of some politicians in the west. Its also a result of all those hate spewing conspiracy web sites.
From what I have seen on extremist websites, there is little to distinguish the posting there from the posts made in P&R by people whose screen names I would quite happily name, such as subrob, sanity, pahunk and so forth. Note that I'm not claiming anything about their character, just pointing out something about their posting that anyone can verify by reading their posts and comparing them to extremist websites: the style and content is precisely that of extremist groups and forums which have been implicated as contributing causes to most modern acts of terrorism in the west.
Stormfront is more aggressive and less polite. Gates of Vienna is more erudite and reflected. But the theme is the same.
Notably for me, I've followed the most deadly and successful such terrorist through about 300 hours of court, a couple hundred pages of psych evals and other evidence, and his 1500 page manifesto. If I were to judge these posters solely on the basis of their posts, or the politicians their posts favor on the basis of voiced politics, I would be forced to conclude that the material difference borne out by that admittedly insufficient evidence is one of talk vs. action. And while I am happy no actions have been taken, I'm morally obligated to caution that "loose lips sink ships", as the warnings said back in the days to which some appear eager to return.
The problem in that regard is the echo chamber.
Fox News is part of setting up the basic framework of an enduring echo chamber, placing extremist websites and figures in the same enclosed intellectual space as right wing politicians and regular people with an inclination in a certain direction. The ideas get repeated without challenge in this enclosed space, until they permeate the people in it. The echo accomplishes what Hitler had to actively work to do: inundate susceptible people with a paradigm that has no basis in fact and is ultimately detrimental to even the people that go with it, until the lies are accepted as self evident truths.
Back when the Gorean section was actively used here, one of the things I liked about it was the absence of an echo.
People would challenge new and old ideas, arriving at something more solid than one started out with. Any man can come up with an idea he himself cannot find flaws in, or supposed truths that he cannot expose as lies. Far fewer can come up with an idea that others cannot find flaws in. I know several people not in that lifestyle were at times important contributors, precisely because the challenges they brought to the table were from opposing views and/or different paradigms. New angles on the old topics, or new facts, or new arguments, it all contributes to seperating wheat from chaff. And anyone that cares about the truth will benefit from that sort of benign "conflict" in the arena of ideas.
It is easy to tell the posts that exhibit signs of echo chamber influence, among other things because of the lack of interest in such a refinement process. Rather than address the arguments, one resorts to addressing the poster or one's history with a poster, or just plain ignores even the simplest of questions posed to establish a common understanding of where the respective parties are at so that a factual debate can commence. There is no structure, discovery, discipline, learning or reflection involved in the process, just emotional or zealous outbursts with little to no substance. And, of course, little to no solid fact checking in any area where one can find objective facts, while other areas are addressed using only the subjective "facts" as selected from places that agree.
In part, I blame Google, as their search engine picks sites that are closer to the paradigm one is already in.
This is what they must do in order to try to guess which sites you are most likely to be looking for, particularly since few people use bookmarks properly. But the net result is that anyone that has read the web with a certain political leaning, will see more of those parts of the web that agree with their existing opinions, and less of those that disagree. This creates the largest echo chamber known to humanity, and one that merely magnifies the effects of whatever other influences one might be moved by. Fox News, on the other hand, is very conscious in choosing to foster a certain environment, building the nazism movement of our century intentionally. Together, these two are able to polarize millions of people around the world in a way that will ultimately lead to violent conflict. "Do no evil" indeed...
Freedom of speech is the right to say what others would rather you didn't say, in essence. Its complement is the responsibility to keep in mind that what you say will influence those who hear it. By being part of a movement that parrots a lot of aggressive and hateful rhetoric without basis in fact, one is part of bringing the fever to a head. And as modern medicine has told us, that may kill the patient, while rarely being beneficial. We don't need a "cleansing" world war now. Bloodletting on that scale is not something we need to purge to keep or humours in balance. Indeed, one doesn't need to be Einstein to realize that if the worst happens, there will be no humanity to speak of, ever again.
And at the moment, the world is too interconnected to avoid major and global consequences to this shit, even if it happens locally. That's why I mind Romney, not because I care what happens in the USA, as I really don't. I'm as isolationist as the right. I just happen to think the golden rule applies: if you want to be left alone, leave others alone. Like most rules, it works just so long as everyone agrees. We need a minor miracle to avoid a chain of events leading up to a major disaster, possibly even a world war, and Romney is a stone added to a burden that's demonstrably too heavy already.
These aren't isolated events, but part of a built up momentum that each of us can do a small part to either add to, or subtract from.
It's frustrating to see posts here adding to it, so I think naming some names might actually be useful.
Best case, the posters in question pause to think before stoking the fire, while others consider more carefully before taking the bait next time, perhaps even pursue a policy of either refuting the posts or ignoring them. Worst case, I get a gold letter for dancing too close to the edge by naming those names. With lives on the line, I think I can live with that, as I've tried to avoid falling off the edge here in balancing those concerns. If there's one lesson I have learned from what's happened in the past ten years, it's that these are matters where lives really do depend on the cumulative effects of the words we all speak (or post). I'm not looking to advocate a particular truth, merely to advocate taking such things as seriously as their consequences merit. On that point, we can all improve.
We now return to the consequence du jour... another shooting.
IWYW,
— Aswad.
P.S.: If anyone wants to bring gun control into it, please just ignore my post, as that means I didn't get my point across.
P.P.S.: The names named are not a complete list, and the omissions were not an attempt to single anyone out.
_____________________________
"If God saw what any of us did that night, he didn't seem to mind.
From then on I knew: God doesn't make the world this way.
We do." -- Rorschack, Watchmen.
|
WTF???? - 
Profile
New Messages
No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages
Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages
Locked w/o New Messages
Post New Thread