|>> || |
>If "them" is racists and shitposting nazis, then the entire world outside stormfront, 4/8shit, and certain reddits and tumblrs is an echo chamber.Firstly here are wider range of opinions than just Nazism. Let's say one is a Stormie, and sees everything outside of his political sphere as so far away from his beliefs that he thinks it's an echo-chamber, does that incentivize him against discussing specific policy proposals even though he shies away from "Big-'P'-Politics" as a whole? No, of course not. The Nazi may have little input on horse race politics, but may still have original opinions on healthcare, foreign policy, infrastructure, etc. He's probably not going to see a debate on whether or not HSR should be built as some "echochamber". So on it's face that analysis falls short.
Secondly, that logic can be used to apply to any insular and fringe group.
>If "them" is Right-Libertarians, then the entire world outside Mises, Cato,and certain reddits and tumblrs is an echo chamber.Your logic thus falls apart, in that it must be applied to all these groups, or none.
>If "them" is Socialists, Syndicalists, and Communists, then the entire world outside /leftypol/,Libcom,Revleft, and certain reddits and tumblrs is an echo chamber.
>>If "them" is Hindus, then the entire world outside India, Hindu forums, and certain reddits and tumblrs is an echo chamber.
>If "them" is RBE/post-scarcity/UBI/transhumanist people, then the entire world outside The Venus Project, FutureWant, and certain reddits and tumblrs is an echo chamber.
>racist has lost all meaning and so has nazi. No comment on this as it pertains to discussion about our /pol/ itself, as this is a political comment per se, but it has important implications to moderation of that board
>its the immediate go-to of sjw faggots who dont care about honest discourse.No comment on this as it pertains to discussion about our /pol/ itself, as this is a political comment per se
>its not an objective standard to enforce.This is the crux of the matter. If someone posts "there are differences!" then qualifies that with "they are due to nutritional, educational, and social factors", is that "racist"? It's a fine line. If someone quotes Sam Harris or Gad Saad and says "there are differences!" then qualifies that with "environmental factors have explanatory power, but their explanatory power is limited, leaving the rest to possibly genetic factors" is this "racist"? Is it racist if someone says the mix is 99% environmental and 1% genetic? 51%environmental and 49% genetic? Once again, it's a fine line.
> and so what if someone appears racist or wants to argue for national socialism or bash communism? I agree that at most discussion on /pol/ can be expanded to such a level, but at the very least if Kirt et al bar certain ideologies, they can bar the equivalent ideologies from the other side of the spectrum, and further than that allow posting of anything only if it is properly sourced, without GTKRWN ideological flavor.
>and its hilarious how you justify your shit with argumentum ad populum. clearly censorship and banning accomplishes absolutely nothing except ban evaders who will just double down.This.