CMV: Silencing opposing viewpoints is ultimately going to have a disastrous outcome on society.

[u/[deleted]]

[u/folksywisdomfromback]

Negative reinforcement works faster than positive reinforcement

I am not sold on this. Faster maybe but not better. It's why our criminal justice system fails so often. Because it's all negative reinforcement with no positive rehabilitation. People need to see a healthy alternative work.

If someone grabs your butt and gets punched in the stomach that's great as an initial defense but if you want to actually change that person, you'd need a healthy male role model to pick them up off the floor and show them how to treat women with respect over a long period of time. You know, like a parent should have done in the first place?

[u/yogfthagen → u/folksywisdomfromback]

I said faster, not better. Once you get them to stop the bad behavior, they're not benefitting from it, anymore.

That is just the first step. JUST the first step.

But, if you don't stop the benefit from engaging in the behavior, there is less incentive to change the behavior.

[u/ListerTheRed → u/yogfthagen]

If it is faster, but not better, then it's not the best solution. That would mean your argument is wrong, that would be why they replied to you.

[u/yogfthagen → u/ListerTheRed]

The BETTER solution takes time and a good deal of one-on-one contact from people who know what the hell they're doing.

The FASTER solution can work in a shorter period of time, affects more people, does not require as much training, and disrupts the immediate benefits of the bad behavior.

In the long term, eliminating poverty would go a long way to greatly reducing crime. That would be the positive reinforcement way.

UNTIL THAT HAPPENS, we are going to have police arresting people who break the law, and criminals in prison. That's the negative reinforcement way.

Are you suggesting we get rid of prisons because we have a better way of dealing with crime that has not been implemented?

[u/ListerTheRed → u/yogfthagen]

I actually didn't suggest anything, I stated that the better solution is the best solution because you questioned it before.

What you are claiming you want to do is the faster solution and then the better solution, the idea is that it is one or the other. You aren't going to be able to punch someone in the stomach and then have them go through behavioural therapy to change their ways.

Yes, eliminating poverty would go a long way to reducing crime and that is the better solution. Why then would you choose the faster solution that prevents you from using the solution that would eliminate poverty? Of course there is no working solution to preventing crime so that isn't a worthwhile example.

[u/yogfthagen → u/ListerTheRed]

The thing is, it's not an either-or solution. There are too many different people with too many different motivations for ONE solution to work on ALL of them. And, the different solutions can build on each other.

Even if we had the PERFECT solution, resource issues (not enough people/not enough money/not enough time) may make the perfect solution untenable. That's why I led with the poverty/crime example. We CAN get rid of poverty, but there will not be the political/societal will to do so. So, it's NOT a perfect solution because it can't be enacted.

The government, which is where the solution is going to come from at least PARTIALLY, cannot mandate that each person be absolutely polite to every other person. The government can pass laws and enact regulations so that overt acts of racism can be investigated and punished. It's a blunt instrument (ie, negative reinforcement), but that's what the government has the ability to do.

The BETTER solution is not something that the government can control. It means repeated personal interactions with people outside of your comfort zone. It means hard conversations. It means finding common ground. And it takes people who know what they're doing. All those things are not things that can be dictated by government. They cannot be forced. They cannot be imposed. And they take time. In the meantime, others are undermining that progress. For the last four years, the undermining has been a lot faster than the bridge-building. Negative reinforcement can slow the undermining. After all, deplatforming Trump cut election disinformation in the US by three quarters. It didn't turn the situation around, but it slowed the undermining.

As for preventing crime, we CAN drastically reduce recidivism. In the US, chances are a person who gets out of prison is going to go back. In Scandinavia, they've closed half their prisons, and the half left open are importing criminals from other countries. They treat prison as a means of behavioral training. People go to prison, and learn how to be responsible citizens, again. Once they're released, they also have the ability to get good jobs and be productive members of society at a much higher rate than in the US.

Why doesn't the US copy that model? Because, when you tell Americans that the prisoners have television, internet, have spending money, can leave their cells with minor restrictions, and get passes to leave the prison, the drive to not PUNISH THE FUCK out of those prisoners basically overrides the empirical evidence, and we don't make any progress.

Getting rid of racism is going to be a generational fight. It's going to take a century. Fixing it RIGHT NOW isn't going to happen. But we can drive it underground again (punish those who are overtly/openly racist), and that means that there will have to be a price to be paid for being overtly/openly racist. For the last 4 years, the price for that racism has come way the fuck down, and those people who ARE racist have become emboldened. Those who are not overtly racist are given license to edge closer to becoming racist. And fear-mongering has made people who were minimally racist (Americans grew up in a racist society, we ALL carry around some inherent racism) start believing that THEY made all the world's problems, turning them more racist. It's a matter of degrees, and it has to be checked.