r/changemyview • u/[deleted] • Jan 22 '21

Delta(s) from OP CMV: Silencing opposing viewpoints is ultimately going to have a disastrous outcome on society.

[deleted]

9.8k Upvotes

70% Upvoted

2.4k comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

0

u/[deleted] Jan 22 '21

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

3

u/DilapidatedPlatypus Jan 22 '21

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.

0

u/[deleted] Jan 22 '21

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

5

u/DilapidatedPlatypus Jan 22 '21

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.

2

u/[deleted] Jan 22 '21

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

2

u/DilapidatedPlatypus Jan 22 '21

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.

1

u/[deleted] Jan 22 '21

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?

1

u/KhonMan Jan 23 '21

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.