I consider myself pretty open to ideas across the political spectrum and even I could not stand being there for even an hour. Gab is what happens when you combine global centralization with extreme selection bias (people who are excluded or unwelcome from the global community platforms). It's like prison but for the Internet.
That's debatable. I know a lot of conservative people. Even the ones who are not extreme (i.e. regular folks that believe in liberty) have a tendency to feel (perhaps rightly so) persecuted by the political correctness in the country/world.
Some people may turn to Gab with the feeling that it's the lesser of the evils, or the only place they can feel free from the vice grip of the power elite, but unfortunately that particular environment turns out to be not such a great role model. There are going to be breeding grounds for such views as long as there is an Internet, but those breeding grounds will grow in population in proportion to the additional prohibitions on speech imposed by the mainstream Internet platforms.
Rather than pointing at these people from a distance, sign up and talk to them. There is certainly a right-wing bias, sign up and change that?
Also, one of the comments below:
> Hank here is the only person on the Planet that can turn
> Sarcasm into HILARITY........
I don't find it funny or condone it, but perhaps this is some sort of sarcasm. Looking at the account of "hank", they appear to right-wing and politically engaged.
I spend quite a lot of time around conservative people due to my hobbies, and I'd dare say a good amount of the people I meet could be considered semi-radical in their beliefs; at the very least, they are hardline and structured in their ideologies. I am not a conservative person, but I am very tolerant of their viewpoints and have spent a lot of time in conversation with them, helping them see my views and learning to understand theirs; in short, I feel confident in approaching those of the "opposite side" (totally a misnomer, but the best way to put it currently).
However, everything I saw on the front page of that website is worse than I've heard even the most drunken, politically minded conservatives that I have met. The beliefs espoused on the front page of that site, keeping in mind this is not even "fringe" for that community, are all things that would elicit immediate removal from any other community that I am a part of; some of that is because of optics, some of it is because of the demographics (PoC, Religion).
I do not desire to engage in rhetoric with someone who photoshops a Nazi SS uniform onto their profile picture and calls for the eradication, in whole or in part, of an ethnic group (this is the definition of genocide). I am fully in agreement with the idea that, on a level playing field, even one whose beliefs are dangerous can be made to feel empathetic and see different views; however, the community of that website seems to be acting entirely in bad faith when it comes to discussion.
I do not desire to participate in a public forum full of bad actors and those debating in bad faith. This says to me that those in that forum are entrenched in their beliefs, and use it as an escape from debate; I, too, have these spaces, and this site for one is even one of those for me.
The act of engaging with people who self identify as Nazis and Race Realists is one of extreme exhaustion and endless rhetorical debate, subjective to extreme attempts of trolling and fallacious bad-faithed arguments. This is what Gab has showed itself to be for me. If you have a different experience there, feel free to point it out to me.
All of this is ignoring the foundation upon which the platform was created on, which has its roots here.
> No. His "sarcasm" was that he now supports "flooding" the
> country with what he called "violent low-iq brown".
Again: "I don't find it funny or condone it". But, how do you know he isn't sarcastically echoing the point of view of a far-right person, or what other people believe his opinion should be? I think that given the right context (and/or delivery) this could be a joke to mock people for example.
> I have zero interest in talking to them. I've tried. Any
> argument I've ever encountered has been made in bad faith.
Whether you've given up or not, they exist and will continue to exist. They lay the bricks, they hold political positions and they teach your kids. These people exist everywhere in society and somehow we need to work together for the betterment (and survival) of humanity. Given how important us working together is, I feel obliged to understand them.
> It's not what you called "right wing bias" that I have a
> problem with and don't want to engage with. I thought that
> was quite clear in my comment.
I didn't suggest you did, I'm just saying that you are able to neutralize the perceived political/ideological bias of the platform with your own thoughts and ideas.
I don't need to neutralize anything. They're not funny. I won't waste my time.
And no, these kinds of people don't teach my children. People who make remarks like that in an Ontario school would be in real hot water. Even if it's a "joke".
In the same way you don't need to donate to charity.
> And no, these kinds of people don't teach my children.
So you think some of these 1 million or so people aren't functioning members of society? How would you ever know if they hold these views privately and express them online under an alias? These are just the people who somehow collected onto this platform, I imagine many more exist (I happen to know many who are not online - and also far-right teachers (it's possible to do a job and not express politics)).
> And yes, "joke" is in quotes for a reason. It's not a new
The "alt-right" is just a fuzzy term without any real meaning [0]: "The term is ill-defined, having been used in different ways by various self-described "alt-rightists", media commentators, and academics." It's a convenient bogey-man for people to claim they know the exact cause of some poorly defined group. Helps in writing articles and publishing papers I guess.
This whole subject is quite complex and I don't know how anybody could possibly effectively police "jokes" vs jokes without implementing their own bias, especially inside jokes. "I wouldn't spend so long replying to HN comments if they all just dropped dead". Is it a death threat, sarcasm, an inside joke, me spreading my anti-HN ideology? Who knows without context.
> It's not about politics, man. I was very clear.
Wikipedia: "Fascism is a form of radical right-wing, authoritarian ultranationalism" [1]. Fascism is a political ideology. But it's really besides the point.
You’re misunderstanding me. I have nothing to say to people who want to argue in bad faith about racism and other nonsense as if they have any valid scientific footing.
Please don’t cherry pick my remarks to make like there’s an argument to be had here.
By the way, that article is referencing a revival of a strategy employed much earlier on in the 20th century. It doesn’t hinge on “alt right” or anything else. Just bigots making an effort to normalize their bigotry.
Have a good weekend. It’s a long one here as we celebrate Canada Day.
> You’re misunderstanding me. I have nothing to say to people
> who want to argue in bad faith about racism and other
> nonsense as if they have any valid scientific footing.
Are you suggesting that I'm acting in bad faith, or the commenter on Gab? I all honesty I think we're misunderstanding each other, that's always been the challenge of writing.
> Please don’t cherry pick my remarks to make like there’s
> an argument to be had here.
Please quote specifically what you think I've cherry picked, I haven't done so on purpose.
> By the way, that article is referencing a revival of a
> strategy employed much earlier on in the 20th century. It
> doesn’t hinge on “alt right” or anything else. Just bigots
> making an effort to normalize their bigotry.
Normalization of speech through sarcasm? I'm British, sarcasm/"jokes" is the language most of us speak normally anyway, it's how we laugh about our shared troubles.
> Have a good weekend. It’s a long one here as we celebrate
If you want to use a "cotton wool" social media, clearly there is Twitter and Facebook. They'll happily organize your feed so that you only see pictures of kittens and agreeable posts. They invest tonnes of money into filtering in exchange for your personal information.
For those who want raw social media, there's Gab. Personally I want to be able to talk to people who I don't agree with and have a proper discussion. From my experience, strangers on the platform are much more willing to engage in a discussion and explain their ideas - and at least then I can begin to understand these people, even if I don't agree with them.
I would generally say that Gab is not always pleasant and by using it you accept that. Not every website/service/media needs to be made for everybody.
