I thought about what you said, and immediately connected it with several other claims of things that also rise with tech advancement... marginal impact of weapons, medicine, intelligence, entrepreneurship/luck, sports, games, entertainment, communications...
So if the marginal impact of everything rises, then maybe that’s just the way of technology? It increases leverage. But then in relative terms, all those things still have the same impact? Or maybe the ratios between them change (e.g. weapons/nukes became more more powerful than communications)? Or maybe there’s other areas that massively reduced in marginal impact (e.g. production of food)...
So, you're saying: "At least a nuke went off?" or that a nuke going off is a fantasy? You know that plenty have gone off, and a few killed a lot of people, right?
I don't have any big problem with nuclear power, but I don't want to see a nuke go off.
There are dead people, because 8chan was allowed to exist.
That is not something that you should be fighting for. You are not fighting for any greater good there. You are promoting something that leads to actual, real people dying.
The reality is the reason why people commit crimes, including violent ones such as murder, is a deeply complex subject that has the full time focus of many highly educated people. A simple one-liner attributing extremism to a specific site you find distasteful isn't constructive IMO.
Here's a quick primer on the history of crime and criminal psychology walking through the various phases of understanding why people commit criminal or violent acts. https://law.jrank.org/pages/12004/Causes-Crime.html
Favorite execrpt from link above:
> Children who are neglected or abused commit substantially more crimes later in life than others. (© Roy Morsch/Corbis)
I have an absolutism posture on free speech. Everyone should say whatever they want without fear or retribution. This includes offensive speech. If this incites violence, so be it. Why not invest in mental health care instead of suppression of speech? The history of mental health care in the USA is abysmal.
https://www.healthaffairs.org/doi/full/10.1377/hlthaff.11.3....
My personal opinion is that positions such as your own can also be characterized as radical.
This is not a logically sound stance to take. Violence, by its nature, stifles speech of its intended victims.
You are only promoting the free speech of the boldest or most ruthless. You are not promoting free speech for those who would be victimised by them.
However, that doesn’t mean to me that speech should be free from consequences. To do so, you’d have to make it free from side-effects (including changing others’ minds) which would make it pointless.
There are dead people, because the New York Times was allowed to exist.
That is not something that you should be fighting for. You are not fighting for any greater good there. You are promoting something that leads to actual, real people dying.
Whilst the media can influence people, including politicians, there is very little in common between the lead up to the Iraq war and the mass murders the parent poster is referring to.
I’d be happy if both NYT and 8chan didn’t exist.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FCC_fairness_doctrine
I'd be happy if this was successfully reintroduced. I can't imagine why this isn't widely supported, especially by those who detest "fake news" and want misinformation to be suppressed.
>> Records indicate that there were 3,613,732 motor vehicle fatalities in the United States from 1899 to 2013.
Also 70 - 80 million people died in just the second world war.
So your first claim is wrong by well over an order of magnitude. If you meant just US deaths in both wars, you should say so. But in this case, I feel you should choose another comparison. To be so selective would be disrespectful to approximately a hundred million non-American war casualties.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Motor_vehicle_fatality_rate_...
Yes, you are correct that I meant to say Americans and not total all deaths like I typed. However, the point that vehicles are acceptable even though they cause vast deaths, yet for some reason if one thing someone doesn't like causes hardly any deaths, they can strongly condemn anyone being allow free speech and create a slippery slope.
If you were to add automobile accidents in all other countries combined with the US figures, you do get obviously a much higher figure. Automobile accidents are very high up on the list of cause of death.
(The article also only takes into account US traffic deaths since 2000 being greater than both world wars, and of course there were magnitudes more deaths going back to the 1970s, likely in the earlier decades as well I wasn't trying to be super pedantic, which is why I'll still leave my above post intact.)