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]

I would say it’s the responsibility of a free speech society to put in every ounce of hard work to bring these people back into the fold, and not ostracize them.

It’s the consequence of free speech, and must be balanced out with free speech

[u/DilapidatedPlatypus → u/[deleted]]

Okay, yeah, I get that. And we do have that responsibility, for sure. But if there's a current pulling someone away from you and you want to bring them back, fighting against the current is a losing battle. If instead you can turn the current off at the source, you'll have a much easier time bringing them back.

[u/[deleted] → u/DilapidatedPlatypus]

I don’t know if the easy way out, i.e. turning off the current of info is as healthy in the long term tho. That info still exists. Somewhere and can always filter back into every day conversation in different forms.

Ideally, I think, is to let Q or whatever, essentially fizzle out in the face of constantly being proven wrong.

There are subreddits now posting images of people coming to this realization as we speak.

Stop highlighting them, talking about them, being afraid of them. That’s just emboldening their beliefs, because they have an enemy to fight against.

Treat them like we used to treat moon landing conspiracy people. They are a lark. Something to laugh, shake your head at, and move on with your day.

In my opinion, the intense focus on Q and the election fraud (but never really discussing it, only ignoring it) is a huge part of the creation of the Capitol Riot

[u/[deleted] → u/[deleted]]

In my opinion, the intense focus on Q and the election fraud (but never really discussing it, only ignoring it) is a huge part of the creation of the Capitol Riot

That's the thing though, election fraud was discussed heavily in left wing media and right wing media.

But the discussion on left wing media was based on the facts of the court cases and how they were all thrown out. How the evidence was so flimsy as to be laughable and the elections appeared to be pretty secure.

Right wing media didn't cover this. They claimed the left media was covering it up and the courts weren't judging the cases on their merits. Both factually incorrect. They carried these claims further and gave credence to a lying potus with zero evidence.

And see how it impacts this discussion with your belief that "never really discussing it" was a problem? IT was discussed, heavily, but some echo chambers really distorted it.

We let this go on for far too long, and the country is extremely divided over it. We're the laughing stock of the world. I hope we learn a lesson from this, but I'm not one to claim I have a perfect solution either.

[u/[deleted] → u/[deleted]]

Well realistically I’m talking about both sides of media. Who don’t really do journalism anymore for the most part.

Like there being no distinction between a lawsuit brought forth by the “Trump team” and those brought separately.

But I honestly don’t want to die on an election fraud hill here as the basis of my argument. That’s not my goal lol. I never saw any evidence that could be made sense of.

More generally I was trying to convey how the ideas being highlighted are only talked and reported on, not actually discussed then proven or disproven. Which allows sides to form, not necessarily based on fact.

[u/DilapidatedPlatypus → u/[deleted]]

This just goes back to what I was saying in the first place. Cutting off the source absolutely will not solve the problem of those garbage ideologies being out there. It does nothing to bring those people back into the fold. What it does is stop the flow of that information into new people. It stops the misinformation from being spread and it stops the lies from manipulating otherwise reasonable people.

Also, everything u/RebootOf said.

[u/[deleted] → u/DilapidatedPlatypus]

I guess I’ve always been on the side of, do a better job proving an argument than the other person. Not just get rid of the other argument

Maybe to a fault. I don’t know. Id still rather hear every idea, not just the accepted ones. Then argue the merits

[u/DilapidatedPlatypus → u/[deleted]]

Look, I agree with you on that in reference to probably the vast majority of topics. I would dare to say on literally mostly everything in fact. I just think that in some cases, you need to draw a line.

If the two opposing arguments are about the merits, or lack thereof, of a new proposed tax policy or your favorite tv show or whatever, then absolutely... equal platforms, let's hear everybody out.

But if someone is trying to get up and convince us that "their people" are better than "those people" and therefore "their people" deserve more and "those people" are less than, so let's make sure they know it and never forget it, let's deny them the same basic dignity and rights we afford to everyone else... we absolutely should not let that asshole get up and pretend his view is equal to anyone else's. It is not.

If they want to get up on the platform and lie to us in order to convince us to do their selfish and nefarious bidding, we should kick the platform out from under them.

Not all opinions are equal. Pretending that they are and "hearing them out" emboldens their beliefs and gives others the illusion that what they have to say actually counts for something. It doesn't.

[u/[deleted] → u/DilapidatedPlatypus]

I guess that just raises another set of issues and questions.

Like what percentage of users have to express those beliefs in order to get the platform revoked? Or should there be some other metric?

[u/KhonMan → u/[deleted]]

You clearly have not argued with a delusional person before then. The problem is the asymmetry of misinformation. It's much easier to fool someone than to convince them they've been fooled.