The question is if the ability of the hateful to find communities of like-unminded people allows them to persist, organize, and affect the lives of the objects of their hatred in ways that were less likely than before.
I’m not sure what the answer is, tbh. I certainly doubt something like the Trump presidency would have been -possible, or as likely, before the internet. Organizations from ISIS to “proud boys” certainly profit from the ability to proselytize on YouTube. But, at the same time, the general trend of the arc of history bending towards justice appears to be still alive, to some degree.
Do you see these folks you're talking about as fully human? I see this kind of classification a lot, as though 'they' are just a swarm of zombie NPCs following some simplistic algorithm.
Perhaps try "humans capable of living in and contributing to a civilized and prosperous modern society"
and, unfortunately, I think you'll often find the answer is that they are not, nor do they wish to exist in one. They want power and total control over, hilariously, the lives of others who simply want to live in and contribute to a civilized and prosperous modern society.
They're hateful, violent, and time and time again show that they're incapable of coexisting with others who don't share their same close-minded fantastical views.
In the context of the article I'll replay how I processed your reply.
> fully human
This is a bad argument.
My immediate reaction was 'it was a question, not an argument' and got a little stab of cortisol from my endocrine system. The 'bad' adjective could be interpreted as ignorant/incomplete or malicious, but usually when I see folks invoke the whole 'bad X' question, its really just a play to reframe the discussion or ignore some nuance of it.
So it didn't start off well, and I immediately felt that the comment was either reactionary or using my comment as a trampoline to project some tangential point.
Perhaps try "humans capable of living in and contributing to a civilized and prosperous modern society"
So this led me to believe we're going down the 'reframing' road, as the comment is adding a bunch of conditions to the term 'human'. This, to me, is simply a way to filter out humans that don't meet those conditions. Particularly when the comment includes 'capable', which clearly creates two classes of human from a political standpoint, one of which should be engaged with because they are capable of being influenced, the other is simply livestock.
and, unfortunately, I think you'll often find the answer is that they are not, nor do they wish to
exist in one. They want power and total control over, hilariously, the lives of others who simply
want to live in and contribute to a civilized and prosperous modern society.
The comment kind of lost me here, to be honest. Clearly this could apply to any individual interested in amplifying their own political perspective.
They're hateful, violent, and time and time again show that they're incapable of coexisting with others who don't share their same close-minded fantastical views.
I think I landed at this comment attempting to shift focus to extremists rather than the rank and file of any particular political persuasion. It's possible that connects back to the article because the extremists of just about any ilk are a) interested in amplifying their political perspective and b) are quite possibly more inclined to engage in sharp discourse on the internet.
> "humans capable of living in and contributing to a civilized and prosperous modern society"
You're doing a common technique of insulting someone's ability when really you mean that they hurt you or you hate them for some reason.
Isolated self-sufficient people, severely disabled people, children with terminal illnesses, very old people, etc. all meet your definition. Do you really have something against people for not being born with the ability to do valuable work for others? I doubt it.
>The question is if the ability of the hateful to find communities of like-unminded people allows them to persist, organize, and affect the lives of the objects of their hatred in ways that were less likely than before
I suspect this is a serious factor. In the before-times, the ability of these people to meaningfully organize was hampered by their comparative rarity and geographical distribution. The consequences of those two factors created a damping effect: the majority of their social interactions were with non-extremists, giving them neither a chance to express extremism nor mutually reinforce their extreme beliefs.
The problem with censoring is the bias you showed in your comment, with who you selected as examples.
Eg, mentioning the Proud Boys, but not Antifa — the violent street gang who committed billions in arson, murdered dozens, and is still pepper-spraying children in Portland parks. You picked the smaller street gang, likely because you’re politically aligned with the larger, more violent one.
I don’t disagree that many groups are “bad” — but that doesn’t mean I believe we can regulate that without the censorship being corrupted into something worse.
I’m not sure what the answer is, tbh. I certainly doubt something like the Trump presidency would have been -possible, or as likely, before the internet. Organizations from ISIS to “proud boys” certainly profit from the ability to proselytize on YouTube. But, at the same time, the general trend of the arc of history bending towards justice appears to be still alive, to some degree.