Anti Vaxers...Another Radicalized Group?

[Au165]

I was reading an article this morning about Anti Vaxer communities on the internet who will troll parents of children who die of vaccine preventable diseases in order to silence them. I got to thinking, how do people become so horrible? The talk right now is "Right Wing Extremists" and before that it was "Muslim Extremists", but what fuels this stuff? As great as the internet is, it appears that it has allowed crazy people to unite without geographical boundaries that had previously acted as a buffer between crazy and the rest of the world.

In today's world to believe vaccines are harmful is to believe in fairy tales, yet here we are today. We allow dangerous rhetoric to be repeated on the internet and to be used to unit the naive in a crusade of hate. This really isn't much different than things we are seeing in different arenas such as politics and religion. I continue to struggle with the idea of free speech versus hate speech and where proven false speech lands inside of that spectrum. Does speech that is false with intent to insight hate fall under hate speech even if the words themselves weren't hateful in a vacuum? We built the idea around free speech with the belief that people could choose what and who to listen to. They could decide what they agreed with and what they didn't agree with, but what happens when your populations inability to properly reason these things out becomes dangerous?

This phenomenon isn't going to end, this idea of latching on to a belief and shutting out all ability to reason around it. "Flat earth" came about a few years back in pop culture (I know it existed in fringe before) as a joke, yet has gained enough traction that people actually believe it. Anti Vaxers refuting all science to push a narrative that we have seen contribute to the reemergence of diseases that were stomped out in our country over a decade ago. Political parties using false or misleading media and internet campaigns to not only drive voting but illicit actual emotional responses to the falsehoods.

This thread has no real purpose, call it a rant of sorts. I got here from the Anti-Vaxers but they are just another example of the internet radicalization of fringe ideas. We have gotten to a place where we have this tool with immense power yet it goes relatively unchecked. This tool is accessible to almost anyone and allows cancerous beliefs to slowly spread and multiply. There is no way to eradicate these groups from the tool so they continue to grow and their beliefs, and hate, continue to fester. Those beliefs eventually manifest in verbal assaults, physical assault, and actual killings....and there is nothing we can do to stop it because Pandora's Box is open.

[GMDino]

(03-19-2019, 10:14 AM)Au165 Wrote: I was reading an article this morning about Anti Vaxer communities on the internet who will troll parents of children who die of vaccine preventable diseases in order to silence them. I got to thinking, how do people become so horrible? The talk right now is "Right Wing Extremists" and before that it was "Muslim Extremists", but what fuels this stuff? As great as the internet is, it appears that it has allowed crazy people to unite without geographical boundaries that had previously acted as a buffer between crazy and the rest of the world.

In today's world to believe vaccines are harmful is to believe in fairy tales, yet here we are today. We allow dangerous rhetoric to be repeated on the internet and to be used to unit the naive in a crusade of hate. This really isn't much different than things we are seeing in different arenas such as politics and religion. I continue to struggle with the idea of free speech versus hate speech and where proven false speech lands inside of that spectrum. Does speech that is false with intent to insight hate fall under hate speech even if the words themselves weren't hateful in a vacuum? We built the idea around free speech with the belief that people could choose what and who to listen to. They could decide what they agreed with and what they didn't agree with, but what happens when your populations inability to properly reason these things out becomes dangerous?

This phenomenon isn't going to end, this idea of latching on to a belief and shutting out all ability to reason around it. "Flat earth" came about a few years back in pop culture (I know it existed in fringe before) as a joke, yet has gained enough traction that people actually believe it. Anti Vaxers refuting all science to push a narrative that we have seen contribute to the reemergence of diseases that were stomped out in our country over a decade ago. Political parties using false or misleading media and internet campaigns to not only drive voting but illicit actual emotional responses to the falsehoods.

This thread has no real purpose, call it a rant of sorts. I got here from the Anti-Vaxers but they are just another example of the internet radicalization of fringe ideas. We have gotten to a place where we have this tool with immense power yet it goes relatively unchecked. This tool is accessible to almost anyone and allows cancerous beliefs to slowly spread and multiply. There is no way to eradicate these groups from the tool so they continue to grow and their beliefs, and hate, continue to fester. Those beliefs eventually manifest in verbal assaults, physical assault, and actual killings....and there is nothing we can do to stop it.

In general I think they were probably always awful people.  It just becomes more focused when they stick to a particular topic.

I agree with you though that the internet and social media has just made it that much easier for all the awful people who agree on one thing to get together and reinforce their ideas to themselves.

[fredtoast]

Here is a part of the problem.

If you are not really well educated one way to make yourself feel smarter is to claim that the "educated opinion" is wrong and you are one of the few smart enough to know it.

I have always seen that as one of the big attractions of conspiracy theories. The fewer people that believe a theory the smarter that makes the believers feel.

[Au165]

I had kids I coached a few years back that were adamant "News" was an acronym that meant Noteworth Events, Weather, and Sports. I explained why that made no sense and went on to explain that it wasn't an acronym at all actually. They refused to believe me, and it wasn't until I showed them on the internet they believed me. This was the same internet that spread the false information in the first place. It is scary.

[CJD]

Trying to moderate the stupidity of others will be an endless task. The best thing to do is try to get the right information out there. You can't force someone to believe true statements. There will always be conspiracy theorists and there will always be people who lie with the intent to harm.

Freedom of speech vs hate speech is a very complicated discussion.

Parsing out hate speech is widely subjective (although you'd think it wouldn't be) because people take statements very personally to the point that they center their entire identity around certain beliefs. If you say something that goes against their beliefs, they could interpret it as hate speech. So who can be the objective arbiter of hate speech? Who can pass that judgment with total assurance that their biases are not affecting their choices of what is and is not hate speech?

The basic ones are pretty obvious. Hate speech towards gender, race, religion and socio-economic status are relatively easy to parse out. But then we have a congressman who ask what's so bad about white supremacy? As if this is a question worth asking in the year 2019.

So how do you define these terms in absolutes when there doesn't seem to be any single consensus on what is and is not truth? I feel like this is the crux of the problem with politics today. With a world of "fake news" and "alternative facts" how can a single person ever truly believe what they are hearing? How is everything not, at least allegedly, spun in some way towards one side or the other?

Even with something like Anti-vaxxing, which does not appear to have anything to do with political beliefs ("In 2015, the Pew Research Center conducted a survey of 2 thousand adults which concluded about 12 percent of liberals and 10 percent of conservatives believed that childhood vaccines are unsafe."), both democrats and republicans are trying to blame anti-vaxxing beliefs on the other party.
https://www.precisionvaccinations.com/childhood-vaccination-programs-should-be-exempt-political-bias

Sometimes I wish the world wasn't so politicized and wonder to myself if there was ever a time when people didn't feel this way about politics. It can be awfully exhausting always trying to determine if you believe something because you truly believe it or if it's because that's what the party you identify with believes, so you feel the subconscious need to comply...

[GMDino]

(03-19-2019, 10:31 AM)Crazyjdawg Wrote: Trying to moderate the stupidity of others will be an endless task. The best thing to do is try to get the right information out there. You can't force someone to believe true statements. There will always be conspiracy theorists and there will always be people who lie with the intent to harm.

Freedom of speech vs hate speech is a very complicated discussion.

Parsing out hate speech is widely subjective (although you'd think it wouldn't be) because people take statements very personally to the point that they center their entire identity around certain beliefs. If you say something that goes against their beliefs, they could interpret it as hate speech. So who can be the objective arbiter of hate speech? Who can pass that judgment with total assurance that their biases are not affecting their choices of what is and is not hate speech?

The basic ones are pretty obvious. Hate speech towards gender, race, religion and socio-economic status are relatively easy to parse out. But then we have a congressman who ask what's so bad about white supremacy? As if this is a question worth asking in the year 2019.

So how do you define these terms in absolutes when there doesn't seem to be any single consensus on what is and is not truth? I feel like this is the crux of the problem with politics today. With a world of "fake news" and "alternative facts" how can a single person ever truly believe what they are hearing? How is everything not, at least allegedly, spun in some way towards one side or the other?

Even with something like Anti-vaxxing, which does not appear to have anything to do with political beliefs ("In 2015, the Pew Research Center conducted a survey of 2 thousand adults which concluded about 12 percent of liberals and 10 percent of conservatives believed that childhood vaccines are unsafe."), both democrats and republicans are trying to blame anti-vaxxing beliefs on the other party.
https://www.precisionvaccinations.com/childhood-vaccination-programs-should-be-exempt-political-bias

Sometimes I wish the world wasn't so politicized and wonder to myself if there was ever a time when people didn't feel this way about politics. It can be awfully exhausting always trying to determine if you believe something because you truly believe it or if it's because that's what the party you identify with believes, so you feel the subconscious need to comply...

I agree it is touchy.  I try to fall on the idea that if the "speech" is directed to harm another group (men, women, religion, ethnicity, etc) it is "hate".  But some would say that "speech" against the groups using "hate speech" is "hate" against them.

I don't feel that way.

If a group says "Jews will not replace us" that is "hate speech".  Speaking out against "hate speech" is not.

But it certainly gets complicated.

[CJD]

(03-19-2019, 10:38 AM)GMDino Wrote: I agree it is touchy.  I try to fall on the idea that if the "speech" is directed to harm another group (men, women, religion, ethnicity, etc) it is "hate".  But some would say that "speech" against the groups using "hate speech" is "hate" against them.

I don't feel that way.

If a group says "Jews will not replace us" that is "hate speech".  Speaking out against "hate speech" is not.

But it certainly gets complicated.

I think a perfect example is this whole Jeanine Pirro thing. She said, on air, that since Omar wears a hijab, maybe she follows Sharia Law, which is in direct contrast to the constitution.

Now, a logical person should be able to see that and say "yea, that's definitely hate speech towards Muslims, as she is clearly implying (if not directly stating) that any person who wears a hijab is anti-American."

But then she said she was merely asking a question. She wasn't saying anything definitively, so how could it be hate speech?

And then you have the President who went a tweet storm over the weekend calling for Fox News to put her back on the air and spouting a variety of other things that could very easily be seen as hate speech in themselves ("Be strong and prosper, be weak and die") which appears to be a dog whistle to the same kind of white nationalism that he claims to have condemned just a day or two before.

And then you have King tweeting out hypothetical civil war memes that appeared to threaten violence towards democratic states (and other states that voted for Trump in 2016).

But are dog whistles hate speech? How can we know for sure what people mean by the words they say? It just gets exhausting.

[GMDino]

(03-19-2019, 10:49 AM)Crazyjdawg Wrote: I think a perfect example is this whole Jeanine Pirro thing. She said, on air, that since Omar wears a hijab, maybe she follows Sharia Law, which is in direct contrast to the constitution.

Now, a logical person should be able to see that and say "yea, that's definitely hate speech towards Muslims, as she is clearly implying (if not directly stating) that any person who wears a hijab is anti-American."

But then she said she was merely asking a question. She wasn't saying anything definitively, so how could it be hate speech?

And then you have the President who went a tweet storm over the weekend calling for Fox News to put her back on the air and spouting a variety of other things that could very easily be seen as hate speech in themselves ("Be strong and prosper, be weak and die") which appears to be a dog whistle to the same kind of white nationalism that he claims to have condemned just a day or two before.

And then you have King tweeting out hypothetical civil war memes that appeared to threaten violence towards democratic states (and other states that voted for Trump in 2016).

But are dog whistles hate speech? How can we know for sure what people mean by the words they say? It just gets exhausting.

I covered the entire "We're just asking" trope years ago.  It's a convenient tool used by some who want to put their ideas out there while still having the wiggle room to avoid being held responsible for their words.

There is a conversation going on right now in some circles about sites/videos/individuals that say "I was only joking" when someone else cites their words/ideas to create hate or violence.

I realize we can't stop everyone from taking someone else's idea and doing something awful.  I just think that speaking out against it should be louder and longer.  Not tepid like with the POTUS and others.  If someone took something I did in jest or what I thought was taken out of context I would speak out against it strongly and apologize for making anyone think I meant to inspire hate or violence and condemn it completely.  It seems some cannot/will not do that.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(03-19-2019, 10:38 AM)GMDino Wrote: If a group says "Jews will not replace us" that is "hate speech".  Speaking out against "hate speech" is not.

But it certainly gets complicated.

It absolutely depends on the response.  A response to hate speech could absolutely be hate speech.  I will agree that it often is not but your statement is not correct.

[GMDino]

(03-19-2019, 11:15 AM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: It absolutely depends on the response.  A response to hate speech could absolutely be hate speech.  I will agree that it often is not but your statement is not correct.

I'm stunned.

Of course I am speaking in generalities.  A specific response of "all Nazis must die" would probably fall into "hate speech" also.

Generally speaking out that such language from a group like "send the blacks all back to where they came from" is wrong, should not be spoken and the group using usch speech is peddling hate and ignorance would probably not be "hate speech" IMHO.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(03-19-2019, 11:24 AM)GMDino Wrote: I'm stunned.

Of course I am speaking in generalities.  A specific response of "all Nazis must die" would probably fall into "hate speech" also.

Generally speaking out that such language from a group like "send the blacks all back to where they came from" is wrong, should not be spoken and the group using usch speech is peddling hate and ignorance would probably not be "hate speech" IMHO.

I realized you were speaking in generalities.  I did not point out your error to be contrary, I did so because, in today's discourse, the response to hate speech is quite often as hateful as the speech that prompted the response.

[CJD]

(03-19-2019, 11:52 AM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: I realized you were speaking in generalities.  I did not point out your error to be contrary, I did so because, in today's discourse, the response to hate speech is quite often as hateful as the speech that prompted the response.

Do you have an example of this?

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(03-19-2019, 12:53 PM)Crazyjdawg Wrote: Do you have an example of this?

There are literally endless examples.  Look at the people attacked outside of Trump rallies in blue states such as CA.  Look at the riots about speakers, such as Milo, performing on college campuses.  Look at what happened at Evergreen State University.   Look at Eric Clanton of bike lock fame.  Look at groups like BAMN (By Any Means Necessary).  Look at this very board on which some people argued that it was ok to "punch a Nazi".  Look at Richard Spencer being sucker punched.  Look at the pro-choice activist roundhouse kicking a woman in the face because she is pro-life.  If I was of a mind to do so I could provide pages of examples, I hope this will suffice.


Please note, I find some/most of the people being protested as odious as the protestors do/did.  What I cannot tolerate, and will never approve of, is using violence in response to words.

[fredtoast]

(03-19-2019, 10:56 AM)GMDino Wrote: I covered the entire "We're just asking" trope years ago. 

The line I usually hear is "This raises a lot of questions" followed by blatant propaganda.

[CJD]

(03-19-2019, 02:49 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: There are literally endless examples.  Look at the people attacked outside of Trump rallies in blue states such as CA.  Look at the riots about speakers, such as Milo, performing on college campuses.  Look at what happened at Evergreen State University.   Look at Eric Clanton of bike lock fame.  Look at groups like BAMN (By Any Means Necessary).  Look at this very board on which some people argued that it was ok to "punch a Nazi".  Look at Richard Spencer being sucker punched.  Look at the pro-choice activist roundhouse kicking a woman in the face because she is pro-life.  If I was of a mind to do so I could provide pages of examples, I hope this will suffice.


Please note, I find some/most of the people being protested as odious as the protestors do/did.  What I cannot tolerate, and will never approve of, is using violence in response to words.

I agree. Violence in response is counter productive (as it can often 'prove' or 'justify' the person's hateful point). But you made it sound like there was hate speech that was hateful towards hate speaking people. The emphasis being on the word, speech.

Those are the examples I was curious about.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(03-19-2019, 03:54 PM)Crazyjdawg Wrote: I agree. Violence in response is counter productive (as it can often 'prove' or 'justify' the person's hateful point). But you made it sound like there was hate speech that was hateful towards hate speaking people. The emphasis being on the word, speech.

Those are the examples I was curious about.

I think you'll find in almost every instance I listed the violence was preceded by hateful words.  In any event I consider punching someone because you don't like their opinions or speech to be a rather egregious example of hateful "speech".  Since money is considered speech under our laws then I rather think physical violence would be as well.

[CJD]

(03-19-2019, 04:01 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: I think you'll find in almost every instance I listed the violence was preceded by hateful words.  In any event I consider punching someone because you don't like their opinions or speech to be a rather egregious example of hateful "speech".  Since money is considered speech under our laws then I rather think physical violence would be as well.

Fair enough.

The point I am trying to make is that speaking out against hateful speech, as in saying "hey, this is wrong" is difficult to make hateful. Unless, like, it's a white person saying they hate black people and then someone responding "look at this stupid ass cracker talking shit!" or something like that. And even then...ehhhh....it's borderline.

[*michaelsean*]

(03-19-2019, 04:03 PM)Crazyjdawg Wrote: Fair enough.

The point I am trying to make is that speaking out against hateful speech, as in saying "hey, this is wrong" is difficult to make hateful. Unless, like, it's a white person saying they hate black people and then someone responding "look at this stupid ass cracker talking shit!" or something like that. And even then...ehhhh....it's borderline.

What if a black person is talking about hating white people and a white person says, "Look at that n***** talking shit".?  Still borderline?

[CJD]

(03-19-2019, 04:20 PM)michaelsean Wrote: What if a black person is talking about hating white people and a white person says, "Look at that n***** talking shit".?  Still borderline?

Nope

[*michaelsean*]

(03-19-2019, 04:21 PM)Crazyjdawg Wrote: Nope

And hence the problem defining hate speech.