Extreme Z7

Massive GREEN Step for Reddit

131 posts in this topic

Facebook is fighting the pressure, though it's not big enough:
 

Quote


Facebook has long been criticized for not doing enough to combat hate speech.
 

Now the outrage against the world's largest social network is growing into a movement that threatens its bottom line.

That's because Facebook's latest critics are some of its biggest customers.

https://www.cnet.com/news/facebook-ad-boycott-how-big-businesses-hit-pause-on-hate/

https://www.wsj.com/graphics/facebook-faces-an-advertiser-boycott/

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Leo Gura said:

I appreciate his commitment to non-violence. He is a cut above right-wingers like Alex Jones, etc:

Blue and Orange forms of “non-violence” can be extremely violent. As violent as physical Red violence and even more so. Of course violent Orange will portray themselves as “committed to non-violence”.

— The 2007 housing crisis was orchestrated by a few dozen high level Orange bankers. They used Orange intellect to create toxic loans that sent millions of vulnerable people into poverty and homelessness as well as a national recession. Those bankers made billions off of people’s suffering. That is extremely violent, yet the Bankers could dress up in their nice suits and speak intellectually about economics and appeared “non-violent”. They hired the best lawyers. They got off with a slap on the wrist and no one went to jail. Those few bankers caused much more violence than a few dozen red level gang members robbing people.

— The opioid crisis from 2010-2018 was orchestrated by a few dozen Orange Pharmaceutical CEOs able to manipulate doctors and pharmacists. This caused millions of vulnerable people to become addicted to opioids, lose their jobs, enter poverty and suffer tremendously. About 500,000 people died pre-maturely. And there was a tremendous cost to communities. I live in the Midwest that was hardest hit. This Orange level violence was extremely violent. Those pharmaceutical executives dressed up nicely and spoke intelligently in courts and appeared “non-violent”. They hired the best lawyers and got off with a slap on the wrist. No one went to prison. Those few dozen pharmaceutical CEOs caused much more violence than a few dozen red level opioid drug dealers could. 

I’m not that familiar with Stefan and can’t speak specifically about him. Yet it’s the same dynamic with white supremacists using Orange level ideology. A few dozen white supremacists can have millions of followers and plant seeds of hate and meme’s of white supremacy. They can use Orange level rationality and manipulate weak minds. They can claim they are “non-violent”, yet the impact of a few dozen white supremacists using Orange level thought to manipulate weak minds into becoming white supremacists is much more violent than a few dozen red level white supremacists with guns. The Orange level white supremacist meme’s is contributing to the formation of red level white supremacists and all sorts of widespread justifications for racial injustice and suffering. And the Orange level white supremacists can dress nicely and speak intelligently about censorship, freedom of speech and how they are nonviolent and just want to have a philosophical discussion. And like the bankers and pharmaceutical executives they get off with a slap on the wrist and no one goes to jail. If a white supremacist is spreading meme’s into millions minds like a virus - contributing to white supremacy, racial strife, injustice, violence and suffering - and the only consequence is losing their YT channel, I’d say that is just a slap on the wrist. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Akemrelax said:

This ones gonna be funny.

 

Maybe Jesse might have his situation too. Some might be very sad.
 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, Epikur said:

This is a stress test. Zuck is orange-centered as his a lot of his employees. Yet many of his employees are green. Will Zuck and FB rise up to green? The pressure is coming from Blue and some Orange. If Zuck and FB stay at Orange, they will cave to the pressure of losing profits. Yet if they rise up to Green, they will place Green values higher than Orange profits. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
44 minutes ago, Epikur said:

If a compassionate brainiac like him has these wrong ideas (though every worldview is relativ) then how much chance has a normal guy to understand the truth of the progressive idea?

Actually a normal guy is better positioned because his mind is not so rigidly attached to an idealist philosophy.

The average guy is not some absolutist about libertarian principles. Average guy just wants some basic stuff like healthcare, high minimum wage, etc.

41 minutes ago, Extreme Z7 said:

Don't forget non-violent far-righters like Ben Shapiro and Lauren Southern have been mentioned in shooter manifestos before. Doesn't mean they should get banned for it but it should at least cause them self-reflect a bit on their views. I think it did Lauren Southern a bit because she recently came back with more moderate centrist views recently.

This is a tricky thing. The problem with any ideology is that it tends to radicalize people and things escalate quickly even when the original founders don't intend them to. Very tricky to regulate that. Lots of grey zone.

Overall I'd say Molyneux was very much in the grey zone. Which makes it so tricky.


You are God. You are Truth. You are Love. You are Infinity.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, louhad said:

@Serotoninluv good point. The externalities of his message and actions need to be accounted for regardless of his intentions. 

I would also say regardless of the delivery. Red is overtly violent. Orange often cloaks itself as being “non-violent”. And it’s not just white supremacy. There are many cases of scientists using intellect, rationality and credibility to cloak themselves as “non-violent” researchers for good. For example, scientists involved in human experimentation. They can use their intellect and create convoluted arguments such as technicalities as what is “consent” or dance around inter-national laws. It is a dastardly feature of Orange intellect, especially in some philosophers and scientists. Most philosophers and scientists are decent people not causing harm, yet not all. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Leo Gura said:

He is a cut above right-wingers like Alex Jones, etc:

How so?

As far as I’m aware, Alex Jones is not a racist. He never said Blacks are immutably less intelligent and have the “warrior gene”.

To me that kind of racism is more dangerous than being violent. Every ideology is violent to some extent. 

Edited by Akemrelax

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
25 minutes ago, Leo Gura said:

Actually a normal guy is better positioned because his mind is not so rigidly attached to an idealist philosophy.

The average guy is not some absolutist about libertarian principles. Average guy just wants some basic stuff like healthcare, high minimum wage, etc.

 

Seems not so clear:

Quote

The Labour Party’s devastating defeat in an ex-stronghold has grave consequences for a party: Its two wings — older and working class and urban and educated — appear to have irreconcilable differences.

 

Quote

“You’ll have the pro-migration, culturally liberal left saying, ‘We don’t want to ally with racists,’ and you’ll have the socially conservative, economically left-wing part of the coalition saying, ‘We don’t ally with people who think we’re racists,’ and that’s a very, very hard argument to resolve,” said Rob Ford, a professor of politics at the University of Manchester.


https://www.nytimes.com/2019/12/13/world/europe/uk-election-labour-redwall.html

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
30 minutes ago, Akemrelax said:

As far as I’m aware, Alex Jones is not a racist.

Alex Jones is a mentally ill, deranged stage Red narcissist. Far more dangerous than Molyneux.

Thing is, you can't just ban all right-wing ideology, since roughly half the country agrees with it.


You are God. You are Truth. You are Love. You are Infinity.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@Akemrelax I don’t find racism to be Alex Jone’s main Schtick. He is more into conspiracy theories. Yet he can cause harm. His conspiracy theory that the Sandy Hook massacre was staged caused a lot of harm. He has also disseminated conspiracy theories that have eroded public trust in government. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
28 minutes ago, Leo Gura said:

Alex Jones is a mentally ill, deranged stage Red narcissist. Far more dangerous than Molyneux.

Yes but most people will see right through him whereas Molyneux will fool a lot more people because of his pseudoscience and calm demeanour.

Molyneux can fool people like Sam Harris really easily, something Alex would not be able to do.

28 minutes ago, Leo Gura said:

Thing is, you can't just ban all right-wing ideology, since roughly half the country agrees with it.

Sure, but most people don’t agree with Molyneux, hopefully.

Edited by Akemrelax

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Leo Gura said:

Alex Jones is a mentally ill, deranged stage Red narcissist. Far more dangerous than Molyneux.

Thing is, you can't just ban all right-wing ideology, since roughly half the country agrees with it.

Do you really think roughly half the country agrees with Molyneux? From what I’m reading he seems alt-right with a heavy emphasis on white supremacy, conspiracy theories like white genocide, Star Wars movies persecuting white people, an obsession with white superiority of IQ etc. . . Yet perhaps I’m underestimating white supremacy popularity. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@Serotoninluv Aren’t you a sciences professor? Does anything Stefan says hold any truth? How prevalent is this type of thinking amongst your colleagues? Do they actually study race and IQ seriously?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
59 minutes ago, Akemrelax said:

@Serotoninluv Aren’t you a sciences professor? Does anything Stefan says hold any truth? How prevalent is this type of thinking amongst your colleagues? Do they actually study race and IQ seriously?

The white race as having superior IQ / intelligence is not a prevalent view in science and there is not an area of scientific research. Yet I’m sure white supremacists would say that this is a bias of politically correct liberal academia - similar to climate change deniers.

I haven’t listened specifically to Stefan’s arguments, yet I’ve heard others. I think it’s likely that Stefan is an intelligent person with an ideology and agenda he thinks is correct. From what I’ve seen of similar people, I speculate that a lot of what Stefan says is true. He would not be able to be convincing and have millions of followers if his ideology was devoid of truth. The problem is half-truths, twisting truths out of context, manipulations of statistical significance, error bars, confidence levels and leaving out information. Sometimes it’s helpful to simplify, such that it’s not technically correct, yet it gets a more basic point across. Yet people can use all of this to be misleading and to support an agenda. As well, when you start digging deep into the genetics and social constructs, things like race starts to unravel and becomes subjective and arbitrary. For example, what aspects of the human genome is relevant to consider as “race”? All regions of the genome? Non-coding regions? Gene coding regions? And who gets to decide the significance that should be given to specific regions? . . Once you get into the weeds and see how someone is prioritizing certain aspects of the genome and allelic frequencies in populations it’s often obvious of “Oh, you keep prioritizing in a way that favors a construct of a superior white race”. It’s not a coincidence. They have a conclusion and want to use data and modeling toward that conclusion. This also happens with scientists and it’s really bad science. 

As well, there are questions of what IQ tests actually test for, if they are the best methods to test for that, test bias, genetic and environmental factors and what counts as intelligence. I could cherry pick data, define what is relevant, twist some facts, leave out some points and create a very compelling model of a white race that is superior for intelligence. 

Intellectual white supremacists can create very convoluted models that take a lot of time to deconstruct and correct. Over and over it’s “Yes, that’s sorta correct. Yet the way you are representing it, it isn’t entirely correct and it’s misleading”. However, their goal is not to have an exploration about genetics, the various models we can create and creating the most accurate models. Their agenda is to force pieces through holes to end up with a model of white supremacy. I’ve tried to converse with them a bit, yet found it incredibly frustrating and pointless. 

Just as a simple example: suppose there was a study that showed tribe A was statistically taller than tribe B. We then use the conclusion that Tribe A is taller, to support a model in which Tribe A is has better fitness and is the superior tribe. After an hour of deconstruction, it becomes obvious that the data showing tribe A is statistically taller than tribe B is a foundational study and this pice of evidence is critical to the model. We find the original research article and find out that there was a statistical difference, yet that difference was only 1mm. It was statistically significant, yet a 1mm difference is trivial. It is highly misleading to say that Tribe A is taller. The person used a trivial difference that was statistically significant, to suggest there was a meaningful difference relevant to their hypothesis that tribe A is superior. A regular lay person is not going to pick this up. It’s true in one context, yet not true in the context they are using it. Their arguments are filled with this type of thing. It gets so frustrating untangling it. And all the misleading distortions are oriented toward their ideology. They don’t care about building the most accurate model. The only way they are ok with the path toward the most accurate model is if that path kept leading to their desired conclusion. Otherwise, things get distorted and misrepresented toward their conclusion. Yet not everything is misrepresented, only the parts they need to be misrepresented. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, Akemrelax said:

@Serotoninluv Have you read any of Charles Murray's books? "The Bell Curve" perhaps?

No, I haven’t. I read a synopsis and this looks to be light on science and heavy on a political agenda. I haven’t read the book, yet my initial impression is that it seems to be the type of thing I’m talking about. I don’t like modeling that misrepresents to create frames toward an agenda. I get super frustrated with it. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Serotoninluv said:

Do you really think roughly half the country agrees with Molyneux? From what I’m reading he seems alt-right with a heavy emphasis on white supremacy, conspiracy theories like white genocide, Star Wars movies persecuting white people, an obsession with white superiority of IQ etc. . . Yet perhaps I’m underestimating white supremacy popularity. 

I wouldn't say that half agrees with his exact detailed justifications of white superiority. I'd say half leans right-wing. And I think plenty of right-wingers have a vague sense that white western civilization is better than the rest because it has historically been so dominant and successful -- regardless of how you explain it. I think at least half the country is ethnocentric, feeling like their race and culture is the best.

Ethnocentrism is a more nuanced thing than racism. Stage Green SJW types would benefit from making that distinction. It's easy to call people racist when really they are stuck in ethnocentrism. They are unable to see beyond their bias towards their culture and ethnicity. Such people are not nazis, facists, or explicit racists.

I would say, for example, that my mother is ethnocentric. She def has biases against blacks and others simply given her upbringing, but not in an openly racist way. It's subtle. I think A LOT of people are like that. At least 50% of the world population. You can call such people racist but you are going to turn them against you and make them stubbornly defensive. They will never admit they are racist.

For example, if I married a black girl, that would def disturb her. I think that is super common in the boomer generation.


You are God. You are Truth. You are Love. You are Infinity.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
30 minutes ago, Leo Gura said:

 I think plenty of right-wingers have a vague sense that white western civilization is better than the rest because it has historically been so dominant and successful. I think at least half the country is ethnocentric, feeling like their race and culture is the best.

Ethnocentrism is a more nuanced thing than racism. Stage Green SJW types would benefit from making that distinction. It's easy to call people racist when reallt they are stuck in ethnocentrism. They are unable to see beyons their bias towards their culture and ethnicity. Such people are not nazis, facists, or explicit racists.

I’ve noticed a vague sense that white western civilization is better outside of white western civilization. In my travels through central and South America, I noticed vague senses that white western civilization is better. For example, in somewhat remote areas of Peru there would be a billboard of a woman that was sorta white woman and sorta western looking. Her skin was much lighter than any Peruvian woman I saw, yet she still sorta looked Peruvian. I don’t know if she had skin whitening treatment or they brushed the photograph. And there was a glorification of western culture: the makeup, jewelry and and clothing. As if to say “This is beautiful and successful”. There was a vague sense of admiration of this, yet also a sense that our culture is better - their music, history, heritage, traditions etc. There was a lot of pride in it.  Wherever I went, I would say that I really liked their culture’s way of speaking Spanish. The majority of people would agree with  and be proud of it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@Serotoninluv I think you can say that white western civilization is better. It is objectively more advanced in many ways. The real problem is when you justify that with genetics, IQ, or some kind of innate superiority when the real reason has more to do with geographical and historical factors, and most importantly the situation is not hopeless or irredeemable. Underdeveloped countries and cultures are fully capable of advancing to the level of white western civilization. It will just take some time. So we don't need to treat them as hopeless, but rather help speed them along.

And also, it's important to acknowledge the great qualities of non-western cultures. In some ways they are better and more advanced than the white west. India, for example, has crazy spiritual development which puts the west to shame.

The general solution here is simple: start loving all cultures and peoples and treat them as if you will one day be born as one of them. Be ware of your own cultural biases and don't try to justify them like Molyneux does.


You are God. You are Truth. You are Love. You are Infinity.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now