What would convince them? If they spend time on sites that are set up specifically for people with their views, they don't get challenged much. On the other hand, if they talk to the rest of the world, there's a carrot and a stick. I'm not saying don't argue with them or don't shit on them. I'm just saying don't ban them unless they are calling for violence.
When we can’t even talk you out of not giving them any.
🤣 The difference is that my position is based on logic and theirs is based on emotions. Your argument is to say they are incorrigeable and there's no point in talking to them and the only thing we can do is to shove the problem under the carpet. If you do that, the problem will only accumulate.
Jan 6th is the result of exactly the thing I'm warning against. If people are forced to create their own isolated groups, the views that make them isolated will only strengthen. If they are out in the open, it's an opportunity to bring them back into the mainstream. If antivax views weren't being removed, way fewer people would believe in them.
Any tactic that they can use to argue, you can use too. Plus, you have the truth on your side. Why wouldn't the optimal view win? The justification "they'd do it if they were to come to power" can be applied to any group and leads to authoritarianism. Trust that people are, in total, not idiots. There will always be some dangerous people, but that's unavoidable.
Targeted harassment and physical harm should, of course, be prohibited, nobody is arguing againt that. Having randos post their intolerant views on social media doesn't legitimize it in any way. It instead gives others a chance to talk them out of it.
Targeted harassment and physical harm should, of course, be prohibited, nobody is arguing againt that. Having randos post their intolerant views on social media doesn't legitimize it in any way. It instead gives others a chance to talk them out of it.
Well, you have to at least try. It will be effective to some extent. If they use distortion or intimidation, reveal it and make them look dumb. Emotional manipulation can be used by all sides. Of course, if they resort to violence, you are free to supress violence with violence.
So, what do you propose to do with fascists, racists, etc? Kill them? Debate is an opportunity to get those people, who are probably very dissatisfied with life, on the right path. Removal from platforms leads to them creating their own, isolated groups that get ever more radicalised. Every view, however dumb it may be, is worthy of debate or of at least being seen (people are free to ignore it). Not all views are equally valid, of course, but the validity of views is determined precisely during debate and argumentation. I don't support fascism, racism, etc but if there's a shortcut to remove those views from the public, the same shortcut can be used to remove anything! That's a clear route to authoritarianism.
Some won't be persuaded, some will. Plus, when there's a bunch of people in a room, there's a collective will to find consensus and be liked. People who didn't reason themselves into their position will move their views closer to that of the collective to be more comfortable. At the same time, if they are being banned and restricted, there's an instinctual will to fight back. E.g. if someone is angry at me or hostile towards me, it almost doesn't matter if I agree with them, I'm likely to oppose them.
Suppressing different views on a platform doesn’t make them go away, it only radicalises them. The only real, long term solution is debate and persuasion.
Hahaha, thanks. Many people are very emotional about this... Which is understandable. But their anger clouds their judgement.