• "Dissenter" browser addon puts a bigoted, alt-right comment box on every webpage
    110 replies, posted
Honesty only works when it's coming from both sides. I empathize with your notion of how debate should go, but it should be considered that it's often easier to change a person's mind outside of it Being reminded of your political bubble can stop you from breaki.. [...]In the control group, both conservatives and liberals did improve their answers slightly—correctly noting the downward trend—simply because they had a couple chances to second-guess themselves. But the group that got estimates from neighbors without knowing their politics improved their answers considerably by their third and final try. In fact, while conservatives were significantly more likely to give the wrong answer with their first try, this party gap disappeared by the end. Simply put, comparing notes helped more people give the correct answer, regardless of their political druthers. The other two groups didn’t fare quite as well. Telling participants whether their neighbors were conservative or liberal kept the party gap alive—conservatives now did only slightly better than their counterparts in the control group. But surprisingly, the simple act of slapping donkey and elephant logos on the screen had the most detrimental impact. The results from both conservatives and liberals were indistinguishable from the control group. Comparing notes didn’t do a thing. But the researchers say the overall conclusion of the experiment is clear: bipartisan networks can break down barriers, but any reminder that an issue is “political” can spoil the whole thing. Consideration for someone's extreme views has its place. With a friend or family member, or with someone who is ignorant as to why their views may be extreme. However, in a situation where said view is too radical* - say, "eating soap is good" - it's not in anyone's best interests to consider it in any great capacity. To give equal consideration to the soap-eaters, would be kinda like figuring that the best way to address anti-vaxxers is to televise a debate where they are given equal time. Although treating him with respect would be the best choice in getting through to your anti-vaxx uncle, in the debate scenario, equal time is an utterly insane plan if your goal is debunking anti scientific thought, because you'd be arbitrarily deeming that the anti-vaxxer's position needs to be awarded the same credence as the opposing one. The idealist in me would love to say that airing this debate would not matter, that this added consideration towards anti-vaxx would sway no one, and viewers would flock to the one making the better arguments, but reality tends to disagree with that inner idealist quite often. So yes, I see your point, but it does not apply everywhere *I understand everyone's gonna have a different interpretation of what "too radical" means, but again, this is not an end-all classification, just a general pointer towards the farther end of the spectrum. What is too radical at any given time, as you'd say, depends
The rise of the alt-right is really concerning. I recently started binging some WW2 videos on youtube and was shocked to see basically every comment section is now full of nazis.
it seems disingenuous to imply that super left leaning stuff would get a welcome reception on that platform. we all know that's not what it's for. there's a reason they need a third party app to be able to post their opinions on other sites. it's a platform for hate speech. let's not pretend it's anything other than that. why do you defend that?
Considering its called dissenter they aren't exactly hiding who and what it's intended for. Containment doesn't work and letting people have selfmade echo chambers only drives radicalism. Not just on the internet but in real life as well.
How do you plan on forbidding these people from having these venues?
I stand by it. While I don't mean to generalize and say that everyone who engages with such shows will become an alt-righter, those're the most standout examples of the kind of media that was popular among that demographic back then and many of the common themes they share would no doubt color said demographic's worldview if it was their primary form of contact and intake of media (which for many of them, it was). Something Awful and its offshoots like YTMND and 4chan (and by extension ED), those caustic "genius misanthrope" blogs like Maddox, edgy Newgrounds animations that took irreverence and shock value as far as the site would allow, South Park acting as the codifier for much of the crassness in its early days and even now still pushing the usual "caring about things is lame, everything is garbage" message, early internet forums where the default emotion if you wanted to be "cool" was smug contempt, and even now the modern meme culture it's grown into where flippant dismissal via low-effort image macros is the de-facto response to anything. I'm not saying this to pull the puritanical "think of the children" or "new media are evil" cards. I watched this zeitgeist progress from within for the past two decades and saw those attitudes emblematic of the so-called "true internet" - attitudes expressed by what were ostensibly my own peers, and which I already found distasteful even back then - mutate and become even more lowbrow and hostile as time's gone on, only to come to a head in the 2010s' culture war of identity politics and lead to the rise of the alt-right as we know it today. I saw a bunch of angry social outcasts immerse themselves in media that only granted them vindictive catharsis and with engage primarily with other such-minded people who even then they couldn't get along with. My generation grew up in a massive breeding ground of negativity, bile, and constant one-upmanship and I now see many people - people whom a mutual stranger would consider kindred spirits to myself - sounding off about so-called "black pill" ideals because that's quite literally how they were raised.
Now I'm just curious what it says about Facepunch or MY PROFILE
I feel like it was actually a pretty poor argument, most people aren't evil for the sake of being evil. They're all driven by their own beliefs and their own sense of right and wrong, even if it is completely warped by partisan media and dirty politics.
If anything, hopefully they stick to this so someone can design a crawler that looks for legitimate security/safety concerns.
It's not called sensationalist headlines for nothing!
There's a difference between not giving them a platform and forbidding private conversations like you suggested earlier.
https://files.facepunch.com/forum/upload/281778/f938dd58-c94a-43b8-bc5a-08c7d886c74f/Screenshot_5.jpg
yeah but the kicker is that you had to sign up to this service which lets face it is ultimately marketing towards right wing voices with more... questionable views. fucks sake their logo is a fucking pepe-like frog
They are far-right but I don't think google/mozilla should have the power to block client-side extensions like this.
Well, no, they should. This isn't me yelling at this addon DEMANDING it be taken down. I actually don't care, because I'm not going to install it (even as a gag). But they should totally have the right to pull extensions like this. This one is comparatively harmless. But what if it also snuck in something like a bitcoin miner as you browsed the web, making people scratch their head on their CPU usage spiking like a rocket? Situations like this are why Google and Mozilla *should* have the right to disable addons. Dissenter isn't actively malicious like this (unless you think it's malicious that alt-right foamheads now have safe spaces in which case I give up) but other addons could and I really don't think Google or Mozilla want this.
They maybe should have the right to remove it from the store, but not to disable addons that are running in the browser, that would be too much power for them to have.
this is only a little less private klan meeting, which i also don't think should happen. as soon as hate speech is organized, it's real dangerous.
Okay so how do you prevent people organizing in private residences with no outwardly illegal nature about it?
no im p sure these people genuinely think they're saving the world from trannies and blacks ruining everything, it's a lot in their rhetoric if you pay attention
https://files.facepunch.com/forum/upload/172/fe4d2fea-e9c3-4b79-b852-cab852463b13/image.png Frankly you're just intimidated by this unbridled masculinity
South Park has always been libertarian, not Alt Right.
Yeah, however they're less fiscal/economic libertarians, and more socially libertarian as they've come across in interviews that I've seen with them. I don't really have a problem with people being libertarian, even if I think the economic views of a libertarian are incorrect, I don't see why vitriol is required, not that you are saying it is.
They used to be more fiscal/economic libertarians, but they've sort of leaned off that more recently.
IIRC I was watching an interview/special features thing in 2013/14(Memory is hard?) for a season of South Park around that time and they came across less libertarian than many of the internet personalities I've heard talk about this subject indicated. I do remember around the time of Team America them being outwardly fiscally libertarian though, so there's likely some truth in them having wavered on that in the following years.
Let's not forget the multitude of episodes about how Global Warming wasn't real, the episode about how we shouldn't protect the rainforest because it's not a nice place for humans to live, the episode about how large corporations moving in and destroying small businesses is a good thing, etc.
I mean maybe that was their direct message(and it was for climate change with the Manbearpig Episode) for some of those things, but by and large, I do believe those were jokes not meant to be taken as serious moral tales to go forward with. And I mean sure they did an episode about how Starbucks is great, but they also did one about how Walmart literally kills cities and is an unnatural c'thulu esque monster. They aren't very easily corraled into singular messages, because as I believe most comedians will attest to, they just try and be funny. Humor ages poorly because it's usually topical in the first place, once that framework changes, some jokes that killed are no longer going to work. That's not a critique of comedy or the comedians, it's kind of the nature of the work. They openly acknowledge that they might have played a role in ruining discourse in the modern day in the episode "Lowering the Bar" and in some small way I think they may be right, but I think it's also giving some pieces of media a lot more credit than they may necessarily deserve by impact. It's in my opinion, literally impossible to figure out what caused the change in discourse and media down to a single thing.
No, but the people who hold them are. And you cannot destroy bad ideas if you do not engauge them, and you cannot engauge them if you taqfir them, and if you do not engauge them, they, and you, will degenerate in absence of outside corrective influences.
They should make one that's a safe space echo chamber for lefties too and then silently combine them one day without warning
they straight up feature a neo-nazi on their homepage promoting the platform you talk about engaging with people, so here I am, engaging with you. are you going to acknowledge that you're selectively blind, or is my pointing out the easily observable truth going to be deemed too disrespectful, and reason enough for you to say I'm part of the problem and whatnot?
If I don't engage with Nazis my brain will turn in to mush, okay
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.