If ten people standing in a row have an idea, you cannot destroy the idea by shooting all of them in the head.

If one of them causes violence, you should not shoot all of them in retaliation.

What would be your judgement if this radical group was just sitting away in their homes typing out blog posts? Would you still censor them?

I completely agree for the need for boundaries, but I think we've done a most excellent job of setting them!

The current boundary is speech that immediately incites violence, I believe the supreme court interpretation has been very generous towards the notion of free speech, including hate speech, as it should be!

Here's why:

We should let the radicals be racist and make radical statements as much as they want. At the point at which they turn violent or call for specific acts of violence we should step in and shut that stuff down.

A blanket militant action against the whole ideology will no doubt show better results on shutting down the movement on a short term.

But the notion of freedom of speech is not meant to protect these radicals, it is meant to protect ourselves and the integrity of society! We cannot make exceptions to these rules just because it's more convenient to us now, because this weakens the principle. This is the whole slippery slope argument.

"Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety."

If you wish to change the lines on which we use force, you must make a coherent case based on principle, not on convenience or anecdotes, as the principles themselves already account for, in a deep way, the history to which you allude.

At this point, the wall will be too high to effectively toss education / ideas over, the internet being the primary form of communication.

"It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it."

All ideas are up for debate.

> shifting the window of acceptable rhetoric

I agree

> ignoring their offered ideas and debate

This has no bearing on the people whose ideas you are ignoring, it merely reinforces the notion of an acceptable idea within the already existing good-idea-population. So no.

> they will be hurt, there will be violence, and nobody will be sympathetic

So, espousing violence against a group of people. Here the group of people are defined by the fact that they use violence to achieve their means.

Surely, you are not defining this group by their beliefs of racial superiority, as you would not say the same thing if they were merely writing nonviolent blog posts, would you?

* Your anger and hatred have led you to become the very thing that you set out to hate. *

You should be very scared of the world you're creating. I know I am.

The best one is: Bayes theorem: http://arbital.com/p/bayes_rule_guide

I'd think that isolating this group is a poor strategy.

Look at terrorist camps in Pakistan where children are indoctrinated from a young age with radical ideas.

Is the solution here to build a wall or to improve education and spread new ideas?

The truth is that you can never build a high enough wall.

"We often meet our destiny on the road we take to avoid it."

Yes, the US actually does have excellent lines on what's acceptable speech. In my not-professional judgement, it's speech that is the proximate cause of violence and incites it, and the daily stormer is outside of that. If you're talking about the US, you'd let the courts decide, and not corporations.

You are free to create a room where only some ideologies are allowed, but it's dangerous to play the same game with the ability to create the rooms.

First the domain registrars, then networks say that they don't want to peer, and then we end up with a fragmented internet, cutting off all communication.

It is not wise to pretend that an opinion that you do not want just simply does not exist. The extremist in the room who everybody pretends is not there, is eventually going to do more radical things to be noticed. In the echo chamber of extremism, there is now no moderating thought; and the world loses empathy to understand these unpopular perspectives that still exist.

"Sunlight is the best disinfectant"

"Isolation only promotes extremism"

On the topic of monkeys: https://www.vice.com/en_us/article/mvxgwa/from-dragons-to-fo...

A transexual speaking of genders as a rainbow: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=drSXRW-4j5o

You are free to create a room where only some ideologies are allowed, but it's dangerous to play the same game with the ability to create the rooms.

First the domain registrars, then networks say that they don't want to peer, and then we end up with a fragmented internet.

It is not wise to pretend that an opinion that you do not want just simply does not exist. The extremist in the room who everybody pretends is not there, is eventually going to do more radical things to be noticed. In the echo chamber of extremism, there is now no moderating thought; and the world loses empathy to understand these unpopular perspectives that still exist.

"Sunlight is the best disinfectant"

"Isolation only promotes extremism"

Everything you think you know about addiction is wrong | Johann Hari

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PY9DcIMGxMs

Take cigarettes. Even if you argue that people ought to be able to make and buy and smoke cigarettes, which I can agree with, I believe certain kinds of promoting cigarettes would be taking advantage of addicts? I have read that cigarette companies also add many additional compounds into cigarettes that make them more addictive.

Let's say you have a new born child. Since there is so much overlap between men and women, how can we EVER attribute gender to the child?

Whatever gender the child chooses, won't it still have a huge overlap with all the other genders?

If that's so, on what basis can the child choose?

To substantiate that comment:

http://yudkowsky.net/rational/the-simple-truth/

What powers should define truth? Sensory / populist / ability to take life.

What is truth when you have a gun to your head.

Also, people do it for interest, and not for status or the money, so it's less political.

These range of conditions are interesting, we are truly a varied species.

Let us do a thought experiment.

We have 10 humans and 10 monkeys. Now, let’s say 5 humans want to be called monkeys. Now, if I say the word “monkey”, what comes to mind? If the 10 monkey-monkeys AND the 5 human-monkeys does, then that means I no longer have a word to describe what I originally thought was a monkey! The word itself has been destroyed by making it stretch beyond the category which it originally described. Words by their very nature are to form categories, to differentiate is their power, and why we find them useful.

Now, we can both agree that the range of conditions you listed are rather rare, and this is the crux of the matter. If we use the word man to stretch beyond the more stereotypical definition, what does it even mean to be a man anymore? What does it mean to be masculine? That is, what do the WORDS mean?

The word man is, as words work, defined by the average man. The fact that it allows us to speak of a large category of people is what gives it its utility. That is why you can say things like “their bodies and minds [are] feminized”, you must have the words to express such a thought! If you proceeded down the self-identification path, how would you make that sentence? That is why we have words like “Androgen Insensitivity Syndrome”, which describes another idea.

First of all, let me say that I am in no way opposed to men dressing in women’s clothes, or men being effeminate, or women having sex with women, or any other non-conservative human expressions; they are what lend colour to humanity, and we would be much poorer without it, and without letting humans be fully expressed.

Now, what about the rarer cases, what do we do here?

But how should such a person describe oneself?

Just because a man cannot have the confidence to be effeminate and own that identity, does not mean that he needs to redefine the word woman to accommodate himself. I think the problem here is that people want to fit into categories that are traditionally recognised by society. Instead people should just appreciate that everybody is unique, and that they should be comfortable owning their own unique identities. They should not have to derive their own identities from the words that other people call them, worse off by forcing other people to use specific words, in a meaning that they want other people to use them in, because then everything is reduced to just noise.

What do you think?