this post was submitted on 17 Nov 2023
918 points (93.5% liked)
Technology
59590 readers
4961 users here now
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
Our Rules
- Follow the lemmy.world rules.
- Only tech related content.
- Be excellent to each another!
- Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
- Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
- Politics threads may be removed.
- No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
- Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
- Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
Approved Bots
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
That's okay, I found it. I'll leave it here incase someone else is interested in the full story.
Is it a tweet he agreed to or a tweet he wrote himself?
Sounds like a racist trying to sound "educated"
He agreed with it.
He responded to it, calling it the complete truth
I actually don’t understand what this tweet even says.
First paragraph sort of makes sense grammatically (“Jewish people are speaking to white people in the same way antisemitic people speak to them”) - I mean WTAF, but ok, it’s at least a sentence that can be parsed enough that I can disagree with it.
The second paragraph makes zero sense. Like I actually don’t understand what the person is trying to say. When you strip away all the fancy words, I think he’s basically saying “the people that attack Israel don’t like Israel very much”.
But I mean, no duh, they don’t. But how does that relate to the first paragraph and why it’s even worth saying. And how does it relate to “whites” being supposedly attacked by Jewish communities?
Space Baby is an asshole. I’m convinced he’s a racist asshole. But I don’t understand what he’s trying to agree with here.
Yeah I tried, with the help of chatGPT, to translate that into english aswell, but the topic seemed a bit too hot for it.
What I think he's trying to say is that since jews consider themselves an oppressed minority, they're then more likely to be advocating for tolerance towards other such minorities aswell. In this context he's probably refering to muslim immigrants in europe. However then he points out the fact that said muslims often aren't especially tolerant of jews in general aswell as highlighting the apparent hypocrisy of non-jews often being treated as second class citizens in Israel by jews themselves.
I'm not sure if this is correct but that's the best steelmanning I can come up with.
I think the main issue here is not so much the tweet above but the tweet this is replying to which was saying something like: "The people saying/implying that Hitler was right, why don't you come out and tell what you're actually saying" and then this guy goes like "Okay well here comes.." seemingly agreeing with the statement that "Hitler was right" and then Elon agreeing with the reply naturally looks pretty condemning.
I recommend that you delete it. Part of how hate like this spreads is by getting people to quote it to condemn it. That's why I'm not posting the full quote.
That's nonsense. If I were to say you're spreading Nazi propaganda but I refuse to show anyone for fear of spreading hate, should people believe me?
If you actually were a Nazi would it be better for me to expose you with proof or would it be better to make unsubstantiated claims with plenty of room for doubt?
I've watched how this plays out repeatedly. Don't repeat the lie is a pretty straightforward part of the response.
Respectfully disagree. Unchecked this gives whoever has the loudest microphone power to claim whatever they want out of context and most people will never find out the truth until it doesn't matter anymore.
"This person said something really bad - we can't tell you what it was but believe us, it was really bad"
The tweet posted is not a good message to spread. But my gauge is whether I'd be ok with the other side having the ability to determine what is and isn't ok to spread, and I would very much not like Republicans (via legislative or social pressure) to have the ability to dictate what messages are too dangerous to share
I mean, it's not a spell, it's a sentence. If reading it will make it spread, as in more people will agree and support it, the problem is already there.
Nazi recruitment actually works that way. They used to even pay people to quote-tweet them with a condemnation in order to get more recruits.
I'm a Jew. I don't know whether you are or not. But in my experience, the best thing to do with antisemites is to show the world who they are.
Also, If someone is accusing someone else of antisemitism I expect evidence. If they're not prepared to provide it, it's just gossip.
Sunlight is the best disinfectant.
No. Hydrogen peroxide is the best disinfectant. Beats sunlight by a long long margin.
Bleaching Nazis on the internet is basically what OP is calling for, and by your own analogy, they’re right.
Sorry for the late answer. My point is that the problem is upstream to the issue of quoting/non quoting. A person who gets convinced by a nazi/antisemitic slogan is already a problem on itself. The quote is one of the N ways that person can be exposed to ideas that underneath they already support, and I don't think this is a good reason to change the way that we talk about some issues. In other words, even if someone "gets recruited" by the quote, this is merely surfacing the problem, it's not creating it.
The purpose of news is to lay out the facts, not tell me how to feel about something.
That’s a overly reductive. News organizations have a public duty that goes beyond just throwing out facts and letting society sort through the mess.
what duty is that?
Journalism is inherently a public service.
but what does that entail? What were you hinting at earlier?
There’s a responsibility to consider the impact of your reporting. See for example the SPJ code of ethics under “minimize harm”
https://www.spj.org/ethicscode.asp
Journalism ethics is a very broad topic, but it’s more than just about reporting facts. It’s about serving your purpose as the fourth estate.
this assumes a moral authority, which can be dangerous
This barely even means anything. What do you really mean?
moral authority, or rather thinking you have the moral right to do something is the cause of all strive. Was the cause of the religious wars... even Hitler thought he had a "moral duty" to eradicate people from the gene pool to make a better society. You can't assume moral authority; you will end up hurting people. It happens again and again, everything from an abusive spouse who thinks his wife is bad quality X and should be beat into a better person, to parents abusing their kids to have them "learn" otherwise they won't be tough enough for the world, to the horrible recidivism rate in countries where prisoners are considered subhuman because they're "immoral", to every serial killer feeling justified to torture people in their messed up fabric of how they think the world works. Morality is a trojan horse for criminality. It treats others as subhuman, abdicates their ability to choose, and then causes arrogance in the "ruling elite" which then ends in slaughter of their own people, starting with the minorities until society realizes, "wait, how did we get here?"
This is more text, I’ll give you that, but it’s still not clear how it relates to professional ethics codes of journalists.
Surely you are not trying to say that professional ethics codes in and of themselves lead to wife beating, serial murder, prison abuse and genocide?
sounds like empty slander unless people can see it and make up their own minds about it
The Nazis count on that to get it amplified. I won't do their work for them.
i think reality is a lot more complicated than it often appears to be, alas
By hiding the evidence, you cast doubt on the reaction to the statement.
Youre already doing the work for them.
You are doing their work for them. Most people here wouldn't pay any attention to Elon if it wasn't for people like you keeping them on the front page. This thread is effectively a re-tweet.
........ This is nazi defending rhetoric. Do you understand that? Do you understand why eliminating the evidence and trying to hide it is defending and supporting the nazi?
Yeah censorship is the answer...