@G_S_Bhogal, I think you misunderstood the statement. Vice signaling is about focusing on showing perspectives that you *know* are malicious in order to demonstrate your objectivity.
-
-
It's distinct from trying to understand opposing perspectives in that it doesn't try to set them in context or acknowledge what the problem with them is, but rather sets the entire story from that perspective as though it were being written by its partisans.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
So it's about intentionally writing one-sided pieces from the opposite side, which is very different from trying to see how that side fits in to a broader context. It's doing PR work, essentially, not journalism.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @yonatanzunger @Tris_Stock
But if this is the case, then the labelling of pieces such as the NYT article about young Nazis as vice-signalling is erroneous. That article is not one-sided at all; it is a non-judgemental and fly-on-the-wall take, which is what objective journalism should be.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @G_S_Bhogal @Tris_Stock
On the contrary: it's something which superficially appears to be that, but is actually very one-sided. Look through the articles (there are several) and see who's speaking: it's the voice of the Nazis that gets to speak, but no other voices.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
And the external descriptives provided by the authors are guardedly "neutral" - meaning they portray everything as highly normal. The net result is an article that conveys "look, Nazis are just ordinary people, here's what they do" in the same tone as you might use about farmers.
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @yonatanzunger @Tris_Stock
I've read them, and nowhere did I get the impression that the NYT was condoning Nazism. But yes, it portrays them as mundane, everyday people, which is good, because it's what they are. To fight evil, it helps to understand its banality, and the mindset that leads to it
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @G_S_Bhogal @Tris_Stock
Yes and no. A core part of how Nazi recruitment works is to portray these *ideas* as everyday and normal: that, e.g., the question of "are Black and Brown people really American?" is a legitimate subject of debate.
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @yonatanzunger @Tris_Stock
One could equally argue that to not allow such ideas to be debated is to play into the Nazi/alt-right narrative of an elite preventing the people from awaking via censorship. Better to have the arguments heard so they can be roundly defeated. Sunlight is the best disinfectant.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @G_S_Bhogal @Tris_Stock
I have a whole essay on this subject that I keep working on. :) The TL;DR is that this statement is true for some kinds of statement, but not others. Most of all for debates about who is human: debates there tend to legitimize the question as being valid in people's minds.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes
Any argument that isn't true can ultimately be invalidated, but only through debate. To censor it is to concede that it is too convincing to defeat in debate.
-
-
Replying to @G_S_Bhogal @Tris_Stock
This is something that I believed for some time but realized was actually not always true. But the explanation of this is complicated and I'm working on it, so let's put a pin in this one: I promise to come back to it soon.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @yonatanzunger @Tris_Stock
Okay, I'll hold you to that promise ;-)
0 replies 0 retweets 1 like
End of conversation
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.