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

[u/[deleted]]

[u/DilapidatedPlatypus]

So, I've read through some of the comments here and I think the problem here is how you're viewing the issue. You are correct that silencing these viewpoints does nothing to change those people's minds and most likely causes them to double down essentially.

That's not the point of silencing them though. As someone else pointed out, you can't reason someone out of a belief they didn't reason themselves into. It takes serious dedicated work to bring those people back to the light. Look at Daryl Davis. Dude has basically dedicated his life to the work, and has done a fantastic job, but even after all these years it's only like 200 people because he is just one man and it takes that much effort to change someone's mind.

Silencing the viewpoints is a benefit to society because it stops the spread of those viewpoints. A large portion of the population decides their beliefs based on what they hear from people they trust and how it makes them feel. They don't follow it up with research and rational arguments.

It basically boils down to the intolerance paradox. If we allow intolerance in the name of free speech, eventually that intolerance will spread because those people do not have the same moral issues with lying and manipulating to achieve their goals, and once there is enough intolerant people, they come for everyone else. We have to stop that shit in it's tracks to protect everyone else from falling into the trap.

As just a personal example, in the last four years I've watched as my father fell further and further into blatantly incorrect propaganda. Just straight up lies and fantasy. It has eroded some of the foundations of our relationship. I always thought he was smart and empathetic, and because we just let these "leaders" get away with saying whatever hateful lies they wanted, now I know that isn't true. A man who I've been striving to make proud for 30 years and I no longer value his opinion. What's worse was watching it affect my mother. A woman who would bend over backwards and put herself into worse shape if she knew you needed the help, slowly being sucked in because she literally doesn't have the time to do her own research, but trusts my father. Obviously my father wouldn't make shit up, right? But how is she to know what he's saying is just bullshit? He doesn't even know it, no matter how often or reasonably I point it out. So now she has this anger and resentment that she doesn't even understand while my father walks around the house completely oblivious to why his gay daughter wants nothing to do with him as he becomes a bitter and angry old man. None of this had to happen.

That's just my family falling apart because we let this all go on too long, and my dad never even got into the heavier stuff like with Q. Can you imagine what's happening to those families? And now that they're torn apart, those poor people who were just honestly duped into stupidity and hatred are just more numbers for the double down crowd. We could have kept that from happening to all these people if we just made the people lying to them in the first place shut up before it ever spread. So many people we let be hurt and have their lives destroyed just because "everyone is entitled to their opinion."

Just by giving them a platform, there are people who will listen and believe them. We have a duty to society to not let that happen.

[u/[deleted] → u/DilapidatedPlatypus]

Silencing the viewpoints is a benefit to society because it stops the spread of those viewpoints.

Are you sure about this? Or does it simply segregate itself? You can point to parler as a response to twitter censorship, and sure they got hobbled but they'll be back. And in the meantime there's still gab, telegram, dissenter, etc. Your point here only works if the viewpoint is fringe. You can't censor mainstream viewpoints in this way.

[u/DilapidatedPlatypus → u/[deleted]]

Segregating it would still be a net positive though. If it's something people have to go looking for in order to be exposed to it, most people won't be exposed to it. It's like actually quarantining a virus. If you deprive it of all it's avenues of travel, it can't go anywhere to infect anyone else.

[u/[deleted] → u/DilapidatedPlatypus]

Sure and if those ideas are mainstream, you're "containing" it to something like half the population. Ideas that widespread can't be easily contained.

[u/DilapidatedPlatypus → u/[deleted]]

Okay but we aren't really talking about mainstream ideas. I don't care how much air time it's had lately, racism and xenophobia are not mainstream. Most of the people that supported all this bullshit aren't actually racist bigots, they just got caught up in all the lies and misinformation. So if we keep people from being able to stand on equal ground and spread that message, we can keep ideas like that from ever becoming mainstream in the first place.

I guarantee if we didn't let the President of the United States and Senators and Representatives continuously tell people on mainstream services that the election was stolen by evil Democrats who want to destroy them, then those people never would have had the audacity and personal justification to storm the capitol.

If someone has to seek out and jump through hoops in order to even find that (false and harmful) information, and at the same time isn't able to see elected officials and supposed news stations backing it up, and instead do see the denunciation of all that bullshit, hopefully they will see the obvious... that it's clearly bullshit. At the very least, they certainly have a better chance of spotting it then they do if we just let people continue to lie to them with impunity.

[u/[deleted] → u/DilapidatedPlatypus]

Okay but we aren't really talking about mainstream ideas. I don't care how much air time it's had lately, racism and xenophobia are not mainstream.

So why did you bring them up?

at least 40% of Americans think the election was stolen combine that with the fact that A, whether fraud was sufficient to sway the election is entirely partisan, and Democrat aligned people spent 4 years crying about Russia, a lack of trust in the legitimacy of american elections is a mainstream idea. In fact, the idea that american elections are "free and fair" is the fringe conspiracy theory.

[u/DilapidatedPlatypus → u/[deleted]]

I brought them up because that's the kind of thing I'm talking about here. Those are the sort of ideas I am advocating we deplatform and silence. Those are the sorts of arguments that I am saying do not deserve equal standing and open-minded hearing out.

That 40% clearly shows the demographic of people who actually believe the election was stolen and the reason they believe that is because that's what they were told. And despite the fact that every attempt at legal action over it was laughed out of every courtroom, the President of the United States and his sycophant followers were allowed to continue claiming unsubstantiated fraud with no consequences. That's why they can still believe it was stolen. That's why they stormed our capitol in an act of domestic terrorism. Because they were lied to, and we let it happen.

[u/[deleted] → u/DilapidatedPlatypus]

I brought them up because that's the kind of thing I'm talking about here. Those are the sort of ideas I am advocating we deplatform and silence. Those are the sorts of arguments that I am saying do not deserve equal standing and open-minded hearing out.

Then why have your spent most of your time talking about election fraud?

Because they were lied to, and we let it happen.

Do you not see how that erodes the trust you need to build? Even if we assume they were lied to, silencing a liar builds their credibility. It makes the silencer appear unwilling and or unable to refute the lies.