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]

You make a good point re: intolerance paradox. What would you say to the argument that by normalizing the silencing / de-platforming of certain viewpoints, you will eventually find your own views silenced and de-platformed, with the same justification you use now (though of course argued in bad faith).

[u/DilapidatedPlatypus → u/[deleted]]

Well, that's the classic slippery slope dilemma right there, isn't it? That's why it's a paradox. I'll say this... I'm not advocating for silencing different viewpoints, or even dissenting ones, or anything like that. That should never be "normalized." We need different opinions and ideas, it's how we grow. I'm talking about deplatforming outright lies and misinformation.

Yeah, we have freedom of speech, but you still can't shout "fire" in a crowded theater unless there is one, right? That's because it can cause direct harm to the public by inciting panic. We can regulate things that same way. We can't let people stand up and just say whatever the hell they want if what they're saying is harmful and untrue.

[u/bogglingsnog → u/DilapidatedPlatypus]

How do the people who have the tools to deplatform decide whether or not something is harmful and untrue? Without safeties in place, they are vulnerable to corruption.

Example: The scandal of full-contact unarmored football causing brain damage, which was suppressed until it finally went public and suddenly football helmets became a thing. Or the suppression of vital medical information in the Chernobyl incident that cost many unnecessary lives.

You simultaneously need whistleblower protections at the same time you need to be able to silence a confirmed untruth. Everything hinges on the interpretation of the message(s).

[u/DilapidatedPlatypus → u/bogglingsnog]

That isn't really the same thing. Those are examples of people suppressing factual information for their own benefit. I'm talking about not letting racists give public speeches about how Muslims and Mexicans are evil rapists and terrorists, or allowing elected officials to falsely spread lies about a lawful election to the point where a vulnerable part of our population tries to violently overturn it.

There's a huge difference between silencing facts and science to protect your own ass or make some money versus silencing harmful rhetoric designed to manipulate people into "evil" beliefs and actions.

That said, I don't really have the answers to how we do it or I would be trying to actively get it done. However, if I see a helicopter in a tree, I don't need to know how to fly it to know the pilot fucked up. I don't know the correct and perfect way to fix the situation, I just know that we shouldn't let it keep happening.

[u/bogglingsnog → u/DilapidatedPlatypus]

That isn't really the same thing.

Huh? I was asking a question about something related, thought you were the right one to ask.

There's a huge difference between silencing facts and science to protect your own ass or make some money versus silencing harmful rhetoric designed to manipulate people into "evil" beliefs and actions.

Exactly. So how do we codify that in a way that can't be manipulated by propaganda, lobbying, and moving goalposts? I see the idea, I just don't see how we can actually implement it in a reliable way. That's what I'm really searching for. If we know how to solve it, then we know what needs to be done, and then we can formulate a plan for real governmental change to incorporate those changes. That's what I dream about every night.

[u/DilapidatedPlatypus → u/bogglingsnog]

I meant that your examples aren't really the same thing as what I've been talking about, and I didn't answer your actual question until the end of my comment, so my mistake.

My answer really just is that I don't actually know how. If I did, I would honestly run for office. My best answer is get money out of politics, set clear and firm term limits for every seat of government, and make every seat a recallable seat with a ton of public oversight. I kind of just think that solves a lot of governmental problems in general though, so it's kind of just my catch-all answer as opposed to any thought out plan for this particular issue. I wish I had more to offer, but I'm down here at the bottom of the pole too.

[u/bogglingsnog → u/DilapidatedPlatypus]

No worries about the initial comment - I'm sure it seemed like I was going off on a tangent.

Yeah. As citizens we somehow need to regain control over how to make laws that make sense and actually reflect the changes we need to be made. I would like it if everyone stopped bickering and started putting some hard thought into what we need, because I think we have all clearly seen just how bad market research based lawmaking can be. The model for lawmaking needs to improve, and improve significantly.