Finding examples of different political positions with the same format problem would be a step in demonstrating bias. And you could come back with evidence of a lot of similar missed threads to defend against bias. However it would be fair to wonder, if you couldn’t or if there were tendencies, via chance, unconscious bias or whatever. Appearance of bias is a problem, even if there is no bias. My main point was that he had no evidence of bias, but was claiming it. He was leaping to conclsuions
Which is a solid counter argument
You may be addressing the OP here, but since it comes after my quote I would just like to point out that I made my point without considering whatever kind of liberal or not you are. We have come into disagreement a couple of times where my position would likely be considered the more liberal one. Despite that I would, of course, be irritated by bias against people with political positions other than mine. And I sure wouldn’t want to see a bunch of liberal threads that started with just videos. It functions like a pop-up as far as I am concerned.
I disagree that the Sandbox is inappropriate. The issue of making a concentrated resource of information inaccessible to the general public is what bothers me. I would not have come in here to complain if it wasn’t for the de facto censorship.
I can make a post about how the electronic voting machines (with modems to boot!) are made by a company auspiciously named DIE-BOLD… meaning, “if you raise the topic of the US controlling the elections, you’ll be killed.”
Do any of you honestly think trump was elected or that anything on television internet or print media is real? The whole “Russia hacking out elections” is a shill for America hacking our elections.
Any responsible president would say that we have control of the internet, voting and media and that needs to stop!
ILP is basically the dark web of net neutrality - which incidentally, has the best thinkers on earth as posters. They hack YouTube views, for more views or less views to manipulate public opinion, how do some of us know whether ILP does the same.
Don’t you find it odd that mostly 60 people have been reading philosophy internet discussion forums for the last couple decades?
You folks actually believe the narrative…
And as it starts to fester …
Is it any coincidence that we have a president who distinguishes between real and fake news
Karpel Tunnel’s response here is spot on. Again, this isn’t a link sharing site, it’s not a video sharing site, it’s a discussion site. Youtube has a comment section for discussing its videos. If you have some ideas of your own, and a video helps you to express them, then include a video. But the primary vehicle of your thoughts should be your written words.
And while it’s not policed as harshly, I would honestly say the same thing about a post where you just quote big blocks of text: most of your post, most of the ideas it conveys, should be your ideas in your words.
I’m not going to tell you a number, because there is no number. If you’re writing a post with the goal of fitting as many videos as are technically permitted, expect that it will be moved to Rant.
Karpel Tunnel, you make several good points on the topic of bias. Appearance matters, even not-quite-justified implications of bias matter. And I try to be skeptical of my own motivations, and I am sure that I fail (if I might coin a law in the spirit of Hofstadter’s that I try to live by: “Carleas’ Law: I am always more biased that I think I am, even taking into account Carleas’ Law”).
To point #3, I had started it by writing my thoughts on Redpilling, but I don’t really want to get into that here. Suffice it to say that I agree all bias is bad, even if it’s unintentional and no matter whether or not I agree with the viewpoints it burdens.
That’s not what ILP is here for. Youtube hosts those videos, they are there for the general public, any free blogging platform can be used to create lists of videos. Those things may not get the information you want in front of people who come to ILP, but my impression is that people don’t come to ILP for the lists of Redpilling videos curated by URUZ. And they shouldn’t, that’s not why ILP exists, and it’s not how ILP best serves its users.
The point I made in an odd way, was agreement with carleas, to point out that my last post could easily be posted in a couple forums here - censorship is not the issue, it’s format.
What a fucking joke. You actually expect people to take this seriously, don’t you.
You must have a very low opinion of your users.
I have seen plenty of topics and posts at ILP that are simply sharing information and nothing else. No commentary. And you have no idea if and when something like that will spur a conversation to take place, or how that information will be taken by someone.
But apparently I am subject to special censorship rules where when I do that same thing, on a very important and pressing issue of relevance no less and which therefore it would be reasonably expected to quickly produce some responses and conversation (my topic shot up to over 100 views in less than a day), I get silenced and the expectation that I phrase things in just the right way so as to make it OBVIOUS that I want to start a conversation. Yeah, because apparently it is not obvious enough. Unreal.
So ok. I can easily do that, it is just a waste of my fucking time. I have to re-post my entire topic, go through each video and upload it again, and make sure to put some nice flashy “my own thoughts” at the top and some “please let me know what you think about…” too just for good measure. What a fucking joke.
I kept thinking joker wanted to start a discussion with that thread about his surrogate activities but he didn’t. He just wanted to post videos. But I don’t know what forum it was in.
i don’t see any conversation in that thread. 2) threads that are only videos tend to attract conversations less than other threads, sometimes nothing. 2) you want to start a conversation`? Start a conversation.
Which means that you had a good title and it made people curious. And then no one participated. It is a lazy and ineffective way to start a conversation.
You could start with a post describing your position on an issue, justify that position, then refer to the video and why it is relevant to your position. What it adds to what you wrote. You don’t have to bombard people with 8 videos. You could use one video. People can talk for a year’s worth of commentary over a single position or single video (in places like youtube).
The idea is not for us to discuss things you find, but for us to have a discussion with you. If you have something to say, say it.
We can all find books, videos, articles on topics where what is presented is done mroe professsionally and or dramatically than we can. But people come to a discussion forum to interact with how other people think. To interact, basically, with believers, believers on the ground.
We have limited moderation resources, and even assuming that posting a bunch of videos is equally as bad as posting a bunch of text quotes, coming down hard on the videos is an efficient use of resources. If you know that every time you post a bunch of videos it’s going to get moved to Rant, you’ll stop posting videos threads. Since you’re watching so many videos, you probably don’t read much, and so probably won’t substitute crappy text-quote threads where you used to do crappy video threads, and so the net moderation burden falls, less crappy posts with the same moderator effort.
This supports my position: 100 views and zero replies means 100 percent of those 100 people didn’t want to participate in a thread where you post a bunch of videos.
I can tell you now that such a thread would also be moved to Rant.
No. ILP is not fascist, nor is anyone getting silenced, the videos are still on youtube, they’re not even the poster’s own videos…
Even if moving the videos could be said be a fascist move, the poster isn’t even having any of their own speech silenced (the videos are still unaffected on youtube, ready to be found and listened to anyone so chooses), and even if the poster were having their own speech moved, it’s not silencing you to simply move your speech to a less accessible area of the forum (and only less accessible for viewers who aren’t signed in to contribute to the forum anyway) - the speech was still freely given, unpunished, and still exists unchanged.
The act of reducing your potential audience, is at best a “relative” infraction on freedom of speech, but in a standard way when it comes to a privately owned, themed forum, which has rules set up in line with the owner’s preferences.
Are you going to argue that private property is a violation of freedom of speech?
You are free to contribute to this private property, no infraction there. Should all privately owned and moderated forums be no different from free-for-all public forums with no themes? Your speech would be far more lost in the noise of all other kinds of speech. Any “relative” infraction on freedom of speech, such as in a moderated themed forum, actually works in your favour in this regard! You are still free to decline to concord with the moderation of the theme and freely choose to stay silent, you are free to go somewhere else more to your liking and speak there, you are free to make your own place that accords with your own rules, or even try to be heard in a public unthemed environment - you are pretty much maximally free here… What the hell do you actually think Fascism is?
This thread/complaint is nothing more than a toddler’s tantrum that you’re not getting their way in every way all the time. Pathetic.
Now reading some of the antisemite trash that appears throughout the pubic forums, I decided I must retire from ILP.
You guys just ventured too far into Hitlers asshole.
Carleas, if you kept the forums somewhat clean, you might have some pretence of reason to move that Red Pills post. But as it stands you are just overseeing a cesspool rewarding the most sickening human weaknesses. I won’t support you in this any longer.
Carleas, Fixed has a Point. Critique of Israel is just peachy, but now we have posts taking pleasure in diseases that Jews get. Those could all go in rant.
Well this is an ironic turn, FC. I guess moving “undesirable politics” is “hard to swallow”, unless they’re undesirable to you, in which case how dare we not move them.
I’m not saying that we shouldn’t do a better job of policing antisemitism, we absolutely should. I’m just saying you’re being flagrantly hypocritical.
K: after reading this, I gotta say, I am with Carleas on this one…….
I am no fan of censorship, but, but there has to be limits of “free speech”…
and I was thinking about it in terms of enlightenment ideals which
are the center of the liberal mindset…
we have certain values that the liberal believes in and acts upon…
toleration, freedom from authority/think for yourself, open to new
behavior/opinions, equality, respectful of individual rights and freedoms,
now how should we look upon “hate speech” in light of these values?
under the theory that your free speech ends in a crowded movie theater,
you can’t yell fire, which means toleration can only go so far…
should I tolerate free speech when it advocates genocide?
no, advocating say, death to Jews, is a bridge too far for tolerance…
but why? why should we draw a line there? History…
we know that hatred of the Jews is centuries old… and we know about
Pogroms and concentration camps and removal of Jews from countries…
the Jews have been victims of the myths, biases, habits, prejudices and
superstitions that have lead to these actions of pogroms and Auschwitz…
and because of history, we cannot be indifferent to any threats regardless of
seriousness, the “I was only joking” defense of the ignorant and foolish…
can you tell me the difference between “kill the Jews” and “kill the niggers”
and “kill the wops” or “kill the Armenians”?
I can’t either… and that is the problem… and three of the four above groups
have had attacks upon them because of the biases, myths, habits, prejudices
and superstitions of other groups and people…………
we cannot tolerate voices calling for violence because we have seen violence
in the past against the usual suspects… we cannot support free speech
when free speech in the past has lead to violence against people…
when you prevent people from calling out fire in a movie theater, it
is to prevent movement/actions that might cause injury or death…
when you prevent voices calling out for violence, you prevent movement/
actions that might cause injury or death…………
the principle is the same…something or something may not happen…
but the risk of causing actions that might cause injury or death is too
great to allow total free speech…
and we know that violent speech has caused injury and death in the
the past…lynchings and pogroms and Auschwitz didn’t just happen…
the ground work for those vile actions were laid out by “free speech”
in advance………… when you rear end a car and a very large man comes
out of it and shouts how he is going to beat you up, you have to assume
that is exactly what he will do… beat the crap out of you…
you have a legitimate fear of someone beating you up…
now, how is someone calling for the death of Jews, any different
to the Jews? you cannot allow for speech, any speech to be tolerated
if it calls for or demands death to or violence to any person, people,
race, creed, color, sexual orientation… because of history,
we know that violence has been acted upon people because
of race, creed, color, sexual orientation…
and it is history that tells us that we cannot allow “free speech” if
it calls for violence to any people…
tolerance has its point where it is no longer tolerant of free speech
and that point is where history tells us it is………
and what of such vile tactics as anti-Semitism?
it is the laying of ground work for a call to violence to Jews…
it is convicting a people by rumors, innuendo, lies and falsehoods…
this type of attack is common of the GOP… it has done so to
the Clinton’s for decades………. repeat a lie often enough,
and soon people will believe it……… the big lie about Hillary,
is no different then the big lie about the Jews and no different
about Gays, (their alleged gay agenda)
the point of the big lie is to ruin the credibility or our confidence
in people or races or different colors, by ongoing rumors, innuendo,
lies…………………
that is why we cannot be tolerant of such “free speech”
and we even hear of the big lie during Plato’s book on
Socrates, “the Apology”… Socrates speaks of how
people view him after Aristophanes wrote the play,
“the clouds”… and thereafter he, Socrates, was
view through the lens of that play… and in part,
he was put on trial because of such constant
negative “free speech” of people over the decades…
it is this type of constant negative “free speech” that
creates in people mind’s, the negative idea’s and thoughts
we have of certain people creeds, color or sexual orientation…
it is the constant negative “free speech” that in the end people
use to justify fear and anger and hatred and bias and prejudice
against certain people…….we cannot tolerate such constant
negative “free speech” against people because it creates bias
and prejudice and hatred for a person, people, creed, color
or sexual orientation………. that is why we cannot be tolerant
of such “free speech”………… because it is the “big lie” repeated
over and over and over again until we believe the “big lie”
the point of the “big lie” is to create intolerance and hatred and fear
of certain person’s or people based on such lies…
and we cannot tolerate the use of the “big lie” because it
does lead to hate and anger and greed and then finally
to violence…
I’m currently neither for or against anti-semitism. Given my limited knowledge of Jews and Judaism, more evidence is needed to sway me either way, but more importantly to me it’s never seemed like evidence either way would be that valuable or interesting in the grand scheme of things. I don’t think everything is worth taking a stance on, such as whether or not tinfoil hats really do protect your head in any way.
Either way, any anti-semitism seems to me like an altogether different issue to whether or not it’s acceptable to spam somebody else’s youtube videos on one of the main forums with little (in this case nothing) to say for yourself. Give the latter a fancy (relatively) contemporary and “super-edgy” pop-culture name like “red-pilling” or not, it’s still far from what the main forums are currently supposed to be for (though a new section could be considered?) and isn’t even an issue of free speech like I already argued. But whether or not you agree with the former, IT IS a violation of free speech to attempt to silence potentially offensive views.
That’s the thing about free speech and open debate - the content of the views and whether you like them is irrelevant (though better quality is preferred at least as any conversation about them develops), but the style of the views does matter.
To quit the forum because you can’t understand any of these distinctions is retarded.
