Removed by mod
My mom mentioned that my dad has been watching some concerning (in her words, “annoying”) YouTube content lately. Last time she said that it was America’s Got Talent, but this time it’s white men arguing with cops. I visited and asked if he would show me. He jokingly said “are you gonna violate my rights?” And I very seriously said “yes. I need to make sure it’s not Jordan Peterson or Joe Rogan or someone even worse”. He got a little bit offended and said “you know me better than that, I’m smarter than that”. But the thing is, you start by watching something innocuous like some idiot sovcit arguing with cops and the algorithm pipeline feeds you nazi shit from there and you don’t even know it.
For context, my parents are the kind of leftists that don’t know what leftists are. My mom calls herself a bleeding heart liberal, and my dad sees the media say things like “radical liberals” and jumps up off the couch screaming “you bet your ass im a radical liberal!” But they’re left of liberal, they just don’t have the language for it.
I’m not worried that my dad is gonna seek out nazi propaganda, im worried it’s gonna find him anyway and I want to throw his phone in a lake.
Maybe shower thoughts wasn’t the right community for me to have my existential crisis. But I wish i could block “sovcit” on my dad’s phone and “trad-anything” on my mom’s phone, not because I think they’re dumb (okay maybe a little) but because this shit is so toxic and intrinsic and scary and my parents are so dumb.
Take care of yourself and your loved ones xx
Why do you stigmatize Joe Rogan and others? There’s nothing wrong with watching people who you diagree with.
There’s plenty wrong with credulous dipshits who give lying propagandists and conmen a platform.
Calling bad faith. The Rogan-stans tend to hide behind “he let’s anyone on his show regardless of his feelings”, while failing to acknowledge that he’s platforming some heinously evil and/or stupid people (apparently Andrew fucking Tate is lined up to be on there soon) and just signs off on whatever crazy they spout (looks at Jordan Peterson). He’s abdicated all responsibility for giving some awful people a platform and good PR.
It’s not about disagreement, it’s about responsibility for who uses your platform. If he grilled them like an investigative journalist or meaningfully debated them in any way, we could talk. But this fucker would have Andrew Wakefield on and just be like “oh yeah, vaccines are evil”.
Trash should be treated as trash.
WhY wOnT yOu cHaLlEnGe YoUrSeLf in tHe mArKeTpLaCe oF iDeAs? I’m jUsT aSkINg qUeStIoNs!
JAQing off, if you will.
I don’t usually feed the trolls, but I’m going to engage w you as if you were being genuine.
I used to watch Joe Rogan w my ex. My ex was a Bernie Bro. It turned into Jordan Peterson and Andrew Tate. Now he dates women 10 years younger than him and I live with a roommate and am paying off his luxury car that I co-signed for him that has since been repossessed. He kicked me out of the apartment that I paid for because “he couldn’t stand to share his bed with me anymore” because Andrew tate told him he could do better than me. Look, people break up for lots of reasons. We weren’t a good match from the start. But the idea that he’s some high value alpha and I’m a used up ho is just so fucking silly, it was the stupidest most embarrassing way for my 7 year relationship to have ended.
It’s important to hear the opinions of people who disagree with you if they are being genuine. Joe Rogan and the rest are not good faith people. They are promoting disinformation and hate. And I think you are too.
I watched my dad end a lifelong friendship because the friend got sucked down the right wing garbage chute. He has not rebounded from his loss, but he can’t tolerate that friendship and just “not talk abt politics” around the guy.
Be better, my dear. I will not respond again.
Must be nice to have parents that haven’t turned out to be fascist sociopaths.
Sending love, you’re awesome
I was interested in Diablo IV when it was released which, after a few videos, led YouTube to recommend Asmondgold. I watched one or two of his videos and the next thing I know my feed is full of maga and manosphere trash. Most of it had innocuous titles and thumbnails but a few minutes in I was being bombarded with lies, bad faith arguments, logical fallacies. Don’t even get me started with where funny Garand Thumb videos will lead. All I could think of was how Al Queda and ISIS recruited people with videos posted online.
EDIT: For the most part, I liked Asmondgold, but the algorithm leads from him to very dark places.
Leftists really do need to do more gaming content.Thats all I’ll say.
Imo Asmongold is good to mid, until he starts getting political, then it plummets into awful. Also yeah I think the garand thumb to far right pipeline is very real, the guy is actually quite extreme iirc.
I remember watching Grand Thumb’s video on actual grand thumb, because I had never known it was a thing (I’m not huge on guns and I like history, but not that much) and thought it was interesting. A couple years later and there’s a video of him shooting guns with a couple other guntubers out in the bush, and iirc there wasn’t anything explicitly said or stated in the video, but I just got an overwhelming vibe of “good ol’ boys shootin and drinkin and talkin trash” which rubbed me the wrong way.
Asmon is fucking disgusting human trash who wallows in his own filth, thinking it’s normal to do. Like letting rats decompose into the carpet right next to where he sleeps, or not cleaning up his vomit “because he liked the smell”
I got recommended Asmongold several years ago before he got political. Dude was dumb as hell, had nothing of value to say and kept making the most annoyingly punchable faces. He’s always been utter trash.
I don’t get how he can be such a non-self-aware trashbag. He seems so reasonable at times, yet eats is reprehensible in almost every way.
He reallh believes he is self-made.
Same thing happened with me and Shadiversity. I like medieval stuff and fantasy so i thought he’d be interesting.
Noooope. Just another fash scumbag.
Wait shad is a fash scumbag or the algorithm leads from them to fash?
He had sargon of akkad on his show and defended him when he was demonetized for racist bullshit.
south park did it.
And they all started playing Minecraft unironically.
Love that episode.
I constantly refer to my parents and in-laws as children. Why? Because they behave exactly like my 11 year old. They have no critical reasoning skills, no emotional intelligence, are easily offended, and can not be reliability left on their own without screwing something up.
At some point around retirement age, humans seem to cognitively revert back to children and those of us in middle adulthood are left to parent our actual children and our childish parents.
At some point around retirement age, humans seem to cognitively revert back to children and those of us in middle adulthood are left to parent our actual children and our childish parents.
Is this true, or is this just (mostly) boomers?
Unfortunately I think that’s just our parents and not all old people. My parents are the same way, but it seems to me more that maturing is a choice and active process that requires effort, and many people are unwilling to put in the work and vigilance required and it leads to the above
I don’t think they’re children, I think they’re selfish lazy assholes, but the result that they need to be treated like children is the same
At some point around retirement age, humans seem to cognitively revert back to children
I haven’t seen that happen to everyone I know around that age. Many still have their wits about them and see the current state of affairs as a clown show. Some are even out here on the streets protesting.
At some point around retirement age, humans seem to cognitively revert back to children
I know someone who works in a elderly care home, she says roughly the same: “Ouderen verkindsen” (elderly turn into children)
Your cognitive abilities really do seem to diminish after a certain point, no matter where. It’s annoying they think they’re adults and demand respect…
My great grandmother (meemaw) had severe dementia, and one time in a moment of clarity she said I believe that you’re a child twice, at the beginning and the end.
She lived to 96. Luckily my grandparents that I loved, her daughter (mamaw) and her daughter’s husband (papaw), died relatively sooner once dementia set it. Unfortunately my grandpa lived with it for about ten years but it was only a couple years for my grandma. In great grandma’s case, she was falling into dementia around the time I was born.
You know, in many EU states we have secrecy of correspondence laws. It’s illegal for third parties to read your messages without your consent. This includes parents and children
I just keep their Facebook accounts logged in on my phone. Every few months, I will go onto their profiles and unlike pages like “Wear your poppy with pride” and deradicalize their algorithm. Poppies for British boomers on Facebook are like Elsa and Spiderman on YouTube for babies.
Facebook slowly pushing more shit and you shoveling the shit away. Nicely done!
How are poppies radical on Facebook?
Because the wearing of poppies has become synonymous with the now deduct BNP and the rest of the British right wing for a lot of us.
You can thank Stephen Yaxley-Lennon for that.
That’s a bit silly. The symbol has existed as one of remembrance for over 100 years. We shouldn’t let fascists take claim of it
Although I take this to mean that the ‘poppy pages’ are actually fronts for bigotry?
Correct.
They are where you’ll find the deeply ignorant, xenophobic, Daily Mail readers frothing at the mouth and red in the face with anger over how “forriners” are lazy criminals that come here to claim benefits for them and their 16 kids, while simultaneously stealing all the jobs and homes from “hard working British families” (read: “British benefit claimants out of work and living in grothole housing owned by a local slumlord”).
Of course it’s silly.
It’s also silly that people get upset at a bunch of Asian countries who still use the swastika. But a lot of people outside the cultures instantly think of Nazis.
We shouldn’t be getting upset at swastikas being used within their asian context.
Very good idea there. I’m starting to have to keep track of my parents passwords (because they don’t) and removing spam/disinformation from their Facebook/email/YouTube regularly might resolve many issues.
Like someone mentioned, shoveling the shit. Can’t stopped it from getting there, but I can remove it.
So, you mean like childish controls?
I would whole-heartedly support this.
Yeah, stripping adult people from some of their basic rights sound like a perfectly fine idea.
It’s better than the alternative. Trust me.
So what basic rights should we strip them also? The right to vote? I mean, if they are not capable of making valid decisions about what to watch/read/think then they can’t be capable of making valid decisions to vote! And lets remove Freedom of Speech fully, it only gets misused to enable nasty opinions and thoughts that “the correct and good” people don’t like.
Right to vote? Yes I think people who have been found to be senile by a committee or at least two doctors should not vote.
That is called disenfranchisement and there are laws for that already.
you should realize this is half a joke
When someone talks about murdering everyone he doesn’t agrees with or taking away basic human rights only because of the demographic then it stops to be a joke in my eyes. We have seen times and times again how it ends, and it is never good.
But yes, I think enough words have been said here, everything else is pointless redundancy.
No rights are being removed. If they choose to come to you for free IT support, they are choosing to accept how you set up their devices…
Remember that at a point in time they setup yours…
Good. If my mental faculties are at the point where I consume and actively seek out disinformation, then someone else should step in.
That is not helping or support, that is enforcing your will on someone else in the disguise of help. Oh and I am sure that they will be fully informed about that cost and its implications.
We can influence the behavior of our loved ones, we can’t meaningfully influence sociopathic corporations. While not feasible, it still feels like the best of a bunch of shitty options.
There is a huge difference between “influence the behavior of our loved ones” and acting as a dictator who censors where the adult and mentally fit loved ones can get their information from.
See the trick is this: does “mentally fit” apply, even in the case of otherwise mentally healthy individuals? Propaganda can affect anyone and the less tech savvy more so. We have no issues with limiting the physical behavior of the people we care about when they cannot handle it anymore (e.g. we’ll drive grandpa around when he can technically do it, but shouldn’t). While some do kick a fuss about it (for understandable reasons) ultimately, society at large is pretty OK with the whole deal.
Now we have them exposed to content that is arguably harmful to their health and the health of the people around them (e.g. voting). And this isn’t opinion stuff or debates. These are outright lies catered to them. There were no dogs being eaten in Springfield, and yet I could hear the old dudes at my gym discussing it while they walked the mezzanine. At what point does their right to play with their phone cede to their mental health? For anyone really? We cede rights to do things when they harm ourselves and others often. Why is this different?
The same can be used to ban alcohol for everyone:
See the trick is this: does “mentally fit” apply, even in the case of otherwise mentally healthy individuals? Addiction can affect anyone and the less tech savvy more so. We have no issues with limiting the physical behavior of the people we care about when they cannot handle it anymore (e.g. we’ll drive grandpa around when he can technically do it, but shouldn’t). While some do kick a fuss about it (for understandable reasons) ultimately, society at large is pretty OK with the whole deal.
Now we have them exposed to substances that are arguably harmful to their health and the health of the people around them (e.g. drug-related crime). At what point does their right to drink alcohol cede to their mental health? For anyone really? We cede rights to do things when they harm ourselves and others often. Why is this different?
So are you ok with a new prohibition
Not the gotcha you think it is. And also, big difference between bans and regulation, let’s not conflate them.
We install breathalyzers in cars and revoke licenses when people refuse to act responsibly. It’s a common requirement of probation and parole to remain sober. We do what you (/I) describe often. In fact, it’s kinda the basis of operation for law at large: we limit the behavior of individuals to reduce harm to people. Be it saying “stabbing people is bad, now go to time out” or “don’t drink raw milk, you’ll get sick”. So yeah, I’m OK with what you described. If people cannot mange their substances, we can and do force them to stop with punitive measures.
- Freedom of speech (and with that the right to get information from every legal source) is a basic human right
- Your examples are punishments for breaking laws, but censoring what older people can watch, hear or read is a limitation of a basic human right enacted without any prior law breaking.
So your examples are all reactive while censoring older people would be proactive. That is a huge difference.
Oh and saying “stabbing people is bad, now go to time out” or “don’t drink raw milk, you’ll get sick” is not limiting the behavior of people, it is giving them information to change the behavior on their own… or they don’t and then they (and the people around them) have to live with the consequences.
The law the grants freedom of speech exists to protect opinions and texts that some (or even most) people find offending or don’t agree with. A law that only protects speech that everyone agrees with is a law not needed, because nobody will ever fight that words or wants to censor them.
“I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.”
Rights and freedoms are not unlimited. Freedom of speech ends at things that put people in danger (e.g. shouting fire in a crowded space). Guns are available pursuant to a well regulated militia (or should be, but let’s not open that can of worms).
I’ll grant the proactive/reactive in a sort of way. If anyone (not only old people drink the fox news poison) starts up with some hyper racist shit, is restricting them not reactive to their emergent behavior? Would it be that big a stretch to codify the effects of propaganda as a sort of mental injury that needs treated? (Yes it would). Point is, at this point we’re splitting this hair rather fine and getting away from the important bits.
So the real way to handle the propaganda is to punish fox and their ilk for being wildly irresponsible and setting up racist fascist bullshit. Corporations are much easier to regulate than individuals (theoretically). They should be sued into the ground for all they’ve done, but we live in an oligarchy so that’s not happening anytime soon. This shower thought emerges because free market capitalism refuses to have any morals whatsoever and people are desperate to stop the big companies from hurting everyone. And the thing that’s easiest for everyone to see is the people they love start repeating horrible things and being helpless to pull them out of the echo chamber.
No, the shower thought isn’t good. It shouldn’t get that far. But right now, the only thing we can affect is the people next to us because the rich are never held accountable, so we’re stuck with bad and worse solutions.
I wish I could do that with my own and from what I can tell my algorithms don’t even put them in as much as other folks.
no, WE THE PEOPLE should have global networks that simply remove that kind of brain rot and delete the people that perpetuate it.
Maybe I’m crazy, but I don’t think we should kill large amounts of people just because they follow a different political ideology than us. 🙄 We have to be better than these extremists to truly show them a better way…
just because they follow a different political ideology than us
Good thing the actual reason is the being Nazi thing, not just having a different opinion then!
Fuck Nazis and anyone who thinks they don’t deserve a slow and agonizing death
XXX. incorrect. this is the kind of thinking that has allowed our civilization to fester. we tolerate the people who actively bring suffering into the world. we resist progress to appease an ignorant faction of the population. we sacrifice our collective future on an altar of liberty, all the while deluding ourselves into thinking that allowing this continued suffering is somehow ‘taking the high road’. BULLSHIT. taking the high road is nipping our problems in the bud.
the damage we would do now to eradicate the illogical mental contagion that is religion pales in comparison to the gains of untold future generations living in a near utopia (which is completely possible when you remove idiots from control and let informed science guide humanity).
Tolerate and slaughter aren’t the only options.
educate and build a compassionate society is obviously the correct answer, but we can’t do that because there is a portion of society that will never let that happen. remove the roadblocks. anything less is being complicit in prolonged suffering.
“We can build our utopia, we just have to kill everyone who doesn’t agree with us” doesn’t sound very right in my ears. It sounds like something where one should ask “are we the baddies?”
one of these days, maybe, you’ll come to realize that there is no objective morality. there is only the winners that decide how everyone else will live. we all get a choice in who those people are.
i choose to live in a world where rational thought dedicated to furthering humanity and ending suffering reigns supreme. the benefits of that world far outweigh the losses that one generation would have to suffer to achieve it. it’s just a simple trolley problem. if you can’t see that, then you are blinded by emotions.
Oh yes, I am sure that the Nazis back then said the same about cleansing the german nation, the benefits for the Volkskörper outweigh the losses that one generation would have to suffer.
there is no objective morality
Objectively false. People in completely different societies (indigenous, uncontacted, etc) have shown that they don’t kill people consequence-free or separated from morality.
Learn nuance. They’re speaking to the Paradox of Tolerance, not calling for a blind genocide…
Murder is never a valid solution to the Paradox of Tolerance.
… I think he meant delete accounts, not delete actual people, but I could be wrong lol
there’s only one way to fix idiots and sociopaths.
Give them a lollipop so they shut up?
I’ll shut up. Can I have a lollipop, please?
Not to back up any specific beliefs/statements from OP, but the Paradox of Tolerance does exist. The woefully intollerant should not be tolerated. It just depends on how you “don’t tolerate” them that determines how upsetting of a response someone has.
For example, just literally disenfranchising them might be enough … or at least could have been. Though after the intolerant gain enough power, there remains very, very few functional options. It’s literally all of the lessons that came out of WW2…
“first they came for the socialists…”
If so, I don’t think they would have 2 different verbs: “remove that kind of brain rot and delete the people that perpetuate it.”
The squad has taken care of the hacker
The first step in trustable networks is securely validated identity.
On the internet nobody knows if you’re a dog, a Russian Troll, or a corporate shill.
This is the one thing I hoped for out of crypto/blockchain.
You, commenter, don’t need to know that I’m “Brian Brianson, a citizen living at 123 Abenue Avenue”. But, it’s good to know that the person commenting is a real person who has been seen and verified by someone, as a simple true/false flag. If there were good ways of verifying basic conditions of people you interact with online, without exposing personal details, then it could curb botnet opinionation as well as be useful for a lot of things.
If there were good ways of verifying basic conditions of people you interact with online, without exposing personal details
The problem there is: seen and verified by who? What’s your “chain of trust” behind that blue checkmark or whatever signifies a “verified person”?
Even an “anonymous identity” if it runs long enough eventually gives away the person doing the writing under the pseudonym. They may refer to experiences indirectly, unconsciously even, and those narrow down the subset of who they could be, until eventually there can be only one person on the whole planet who fits all the available clues.
To an extent, the world needs to grow up and realize that anyone determined enough can hunt you down through your online footprint unless you’re being super careful with your identity creation, what you say, and how long you use that identity. They also need to realize that among the 8 billion+ of us, they just aren’t very interesting unless they seem gullible enough to authorize a transfer of funds…
I’m imagining something like being able to go to a lawyer, or journalist’s office - somewhere they’d have established notaries, and show them a driver’s license or other notable documentation. They wouldn’t be granted rights to record that information permanently, but would grant a cryptographic signature sourced from their office to express that their office has seen them.
This would rely on professional trust - that the people you show your info to will not record it; and, that if they for some reason have to, they won’t turn it over to warrants. By the same token, they’d be trusted that they’re not inventing people from thin air.
You’re right that someone engaging online long enough could be exposed. That would then rely on any effective “Right to be forgotten” laws to erase unnecessary data.
You can be all three at the same time!
Jokes apart, how would you prevent trolls and shills from trolling and shilling?
We already have a problem where real accounts get stolen because they have a history so it’s harder to be flagged as bots. And one person can open multiple accounts in multiple networks. Hell, Facebook forces people to have phone numbers and there’s still so many bots and shills there.
I don’t want this to sound like a straw man, I think there’s so many ways for bots to happen that it’s like playing wack a mole.
The opposite of parental controls would be blocking content made for kids
Any time you hear Republicans argue 18 year olds shouldn’t be able to vote, and they want to increase the age to 21/25, tell them “OK - then anybody over 65 isn’t allowed to vote either.”
I would settle for no one can be elected if their age is younger or older than 30 and 60.
Same maximum retirement age for everyone. Politicians included.
If you’re old enough to draw your full Social Security payment, you’re too old to hold public office.
Sorry, Bernie. You’re one of the good ones, but you’ll have to make sacrifices for the common good.
Not being eligible doesn’t mean not doing campaigns for other people.
There already is a lower limit (must be 35), just need to add the upper
for becoming a president or for voting?
That number is specifically for the president
I’m not talking about just the president. I don’t think we need anyone older than 60 deciding the future. I’m less than a decade from 60 but have been ruled by people much older than me why whole life. It isn’t any better and in some ways worse than it was when I was in my twenties.
Yup. I’m 45 and I can’t believe that people older than my parents are still running the country.
Yea, I feel you. Age limits everywhere, especially the upper limit, are a good idea.
I guess you don’t think much of your parents then if you feel like you’re a better judge of that.
I mean… Have you seen the stuff my parents share…?
I’m just thankful that my kids will never be embarrassed by me. (This is sarcasm. Of course they will!)
I actually hope my kids are at least a little embarrassed by me, someday. I hope they will embrace new kinds of pragmatic effective compassion and community, even if I’m unable up adapt.
My mom embarrassed me all the time as a kid, but only because she’s a boisterous, loud personality. She never really did anything on purpose, and I was never the one to throw a tantrum in public so there was no need.
China, now the leading global super-power, took drastic measures decades ago to make sure their population wasn’t getting indoctrinated by outside influences.
They also used this power to cover up genocides and such, but I feel like a healthier balance could be maintained if we could just get our population to understand that their unfettered access to literally anything is like opening up a wound to the world’s bacteria.
China didn’t do that cause they care about their citizens. They did it so only they can control what propoganda their citizens consume, teaching children critical thinking and emotional regulation early in their life is a better approach than trying to turn the external world into some safe walled garden
