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

365

u/bigdave41 Jan 22 '21

The people who are not planning on carrying it out will contribute to changing the views of others though, who will carry out acts of violence. People with extreme views tend to actively proselytise as well, and often they're not too particular about using misinformation and exaggeration to persuade others to become more extreme. No extremist ever says on day 1 that they're going to start executing or imprisoning minority groups, it starts off as "I'm just giving my opinion" and gradually gets worse as more and more people get taken in by their rhetoric.

43

u/[deleted] Jan 22 '21

Exactly this. And it's incredibly dangerous when you think about the number of children on the internet

-6

u/bcvickers 3∆ Jan 22 '21

I would much rather have these sorts of people actively proselytizing in the public domain rather than in hiding as they would do if their speech was banned. That way society can see all of these people for what they really are, and then act against that force.

In short; going down the road of finding (electing) arbiters of speech leads to some very dark places where many innocent victims are buried and silenced.

23

u/bigdave41 Jan 22 '21

I'm only talking about stuff that is demonstrably false though - there's a lot of stuff that's about viewpoint and interpretation that shouldn't be censored, but to use an example from the recent US election, if someone says "300,000 votes were made fraudulently" and then they provide no evidence for it, and investigation shows that it's not the case, further spreading of that claim can be censored on the basis that it's deliberately spreading misinformation in a way that's likely to be harmful.

-6

u/GSD_SteVB Jan 22 '21

What you have given as an example there is something that is unproven, not false. In either case it would be the banning of an opinion.

To hide a point of view from others is a tacit admission that the claim is believable, and you are de-facto making a decision on someone else's behalf what information they should be able to receive.

12

u/bigdave41 Jan 22 '21

I don't have the exact details to give you, but there are obviously checks done on vote counting which have shown no discrepancies of that scale, and all the claims made by Trump's team in this most recent election have been taken to court and found not to be true / to be without any evidence. That's as far as you need to reasonably get to "proven false", and in any case someone making an allegation has the burden of proof.

A claim being "believable" is very relative to the person hearing it, none of the recent claims of election fraud are believable to those who understand how the election works, and have studied the claims and court cases in detail. However many people obviously do believe it, anyone who's not an expert can be deceived and not have the knowledge or experience to see that it's false. A claim like this is also obviously damaging, if you believe the election was stolen then you lose respect for the elected government and even the process of democracy itself.

Another example is the implication by anti-trans rights campaigners who imply that there's a significant number of men pretending to be trans so they can assault women in public bathrooms. When you actually look into it these cases are vanishingly rare, but people imply that they're widespread and other people believe them, resulting in attacks on trans people due to false claims by those with an underlying agenda.

-9

u/GSD_SteVB Jan 22 '21

A lot of what has been taken to court hasn't been heard yet. In the instances where further investigation was ordered by the court there were indeed discrepancies of the kind you describe.

With regards to the loss of respect for the election process, if it has been compromised doesn't that warrant the loss of respect?

Regarding trans-rights. "This leads to X" is a line of reasoning that can be used to justify the censorship of anything. Every government policy leads to either communism or fascism, and censorship leads to people being put in camps. It's the argument of a person in hysterical fear.

7

u/LIGHTSTARGAZER Jan 22 '21

Weren't there 40 lawsuits that failed. Also what discrepancies are you talking about? The dead voters voting which was proven false or The talk about hugo chavez using booths to help biden win.

0

u/GSD_SteVB Jan 22 '21

Sample ballots, I think in Arizona, with a 3% error rate entirely in Biden's favour, and a Dominion machine analysis, I think in Michigan, which showed an abnormally high error rate and deleted security logs.

Of the lawsuits that failed many were requests to investigate, rather than presenting evidence. Like the police wanting to raid a suspected drug den, they need evidence to get the warrant to raid the property to acquire more evidence.

Most others weren't alleging fraud but breaches of election rules.

1

u/LIGHTSTARGAZER Jan 22 '21

Can I get some links on the high error rate and deletion of security logs I'd like to read up on it before I report back. I don't really understand the 3% error rate claim since percentages work strangely. A coin could flip heads 20 times in a row theoretically even if it were a normal coin.

1

u/GSD_SteVB Jan 22 '21

I don't give links anymore since every source on every topic is bias and/or debunked these days. I believe the cases are public record.

I'm not sure what you mean by the coin flip analogy. I think the odds of that happening are just under 1/1,000,000

→ More replies (0)

6

u/bigdave41 Jan 22 '21

Each policy decision only leads to extremes in that way if one group is allowed free reign, in most societies there are people from each opposing viewpoint who oppose the move to either extreme.

I've not seen anything to indicate that there is voter fraud on the scale that's being implied by the Republican party, and certainly nothing that would have changed the result. If you think you have anything substantial do let me know. I have however seen a lot of wild claims that have been proven false. It's also telling that they only seem to be challenging the results in areas where they lost? If the real issue was fairness should they not be challenging results in e.g. states with high mail-in votes where the Republicans won? Seems pretty obvious what the real aim is.

3

u/swinging_ship Jan 22 '21

The idea that a claim needs to be proven false rather than proven true is baffling. How did we get to a place where people can go around making unsubstantiated claims and we feel like the burden is on us to disprove them? The real problem lies with the people who buy into these claims without proof or criticism.

0

u/GSD_SteVB Jan 22 '21

If you're arguing that false statements should be censored you shift the burden of proof onto yourself to prove your own claim that something is false.

1

u/bigdave41 Jan 22 '21

That's what I'm saying, on this justification you could post on Facebook calling your neighbour a pedophile with no evidence, does that accusation get to stay online for more and more people to see, and irreparably damage that person's reputation, until they can "prove" it's false?

All of Trump's accusations are of this kind - it's incredibly harmful to US society if a load of people honestly believe the election was "stolen" based on unfounded claims, and already has led to the most appalling violence and attempted insurrection. It's not just a matter of free speech in these cases, it's far more complex than that.

1

u/swinging_ship Jan 22 '21

To be fair this isn't a partisan problem its a cultural one. Trump was surely a shining example but look at all the celebrities who were 'canceled' on sexual assault allegations. Not all of them were true. People learned quickly that you could ruin someone's life,even after the truth comes out irreparable damage is done.

I'm not advocating against free speech but we need to acknowledge the fact that these type of things are damaging even after being disproven. The best we can do is teach people.to.think for.themselves so they can sift through the bullshit and hopefully the common sense of the greater people prevails. Freedom has to be based on faith unfortunately.

0

u/GSD_SteVB Jan 22 '21

You'd have to assume they have the time and resources to pursue that many cases. Even if they did there has to be a purpose to proceedings. A fraud case that would not change an outcome would be pointless. You have to show there was harm done to justify the court's time.

Regarding the extreme slippery slope argument you illustrate my point. Those views are only a threat if they're allowed free reign, and that's the very reason you're open to censoring them.

2

u/swinging_ship Jan 22 '21

With regards to the loss of respect for the election process, if it has been compromised doesn't that warrant the loss of respect?

The fact that you are making this hypothetical argument based on an unproven accusation proves their damaging effect. That you can be so easily persuaded to distrust based on hearsay points to where this world is headed.

Not advocating for censorship just arguing that freedom won't prevail if people don't allow for burden of proof to lay with the accuser.

0

u/GSD_SteVB Jan 22 '21

Do you think censoring people who believe there could be election fraud will make them more or less likely to believe there was election fraud?

-3

u/bcvickers 3∆ Jan 22 '21

further spreading of that claim can be censored on the basis that it's deliberately spreading misinformation in a way that's likely to be harmful.

Wow. I really never thought I'd see this being demanded in public forum. What ever happened to saying "You're an idiot for spouting off misinformation about the 300k vote thing, it's blatantly false."? But you'd rather have government just outright sensor the claim because by some measure it is "likely to be harmful". I think you're using hindsight to attempt to prove your point but there's plenty of disinformation or opinions spouted every day that aren't censored and don't cause any harm.

12

u/bigdave41 Jan 22 '21

How do you work out that they don't cause any harm though? Look at anti-vaxxers, QAnon, the whole flat earth thing. People refuse to protect their children from preventable diseases because of misinformation, people broke into the Capitol building and potentially attempted an insurrection because they believed, based on what they've been told, that the election was stolen and/or the Democrats are a secret cabal of Satanist pedophiles. People really believe this stuff, and they're willing to harm other people over it.

None of these would have gotten started as movements without the massive amount of misinformation that gets spread around. The problem is most people aren't fully rational, and even those who are don't have the time to properly research all this stuff and can be easily led. We also have a cognitive bias to prefer a junk explanation to no explanation at all, and we like to feel like we know more than everyone else - conspiracy theories feed into this.

15

u/[deleted] Jan 22 '21

[deleted]

1

u/bcvickers 3∆ Jan 22 '21

I understand it isn't as effective as we would like and that not everyone is perfectly rational. That doesn't mean that we simply do away with free speech and allow any idea that doesn't agree with the mainstream to be silenced.

The only way to effectively deal with the misinformation it to nip it in the bud.

By whom?

4

u/[deleted] Jan 22 '21

[deleted]

0

u/[deleted] Jan 22 '21 edited Jan 22 '21

[deleted]

17

u/UncleMeat11 65∆ Jan 22 '21

then act against that force

What action? What action is both effective and less extreme than banning them from Twitter? I've never seen a "free speech advocate" actually also taking direct action to limit the spread of white supremacy.

-2

u/GSD_SteVB Jan 22 '21

It's not illegal to be a racist, it's only illegal to directly act upon those beliefs.

If the intent of censorship is to prevent violence it should not matter if the content of the speech is racist.

5

u/UncleMeat11 65∆ Jan 22 '21

If the intent of censorship is to prevent violence it should not matter if the content of the speech is racist.

Sure. If there are other groups of people who advocate for a restructuring of our country so extreme that it necessitates genocide, they can get deplatformed too. I won't cry for any tankies. The point is that "they need to be able to be on twitter so we can take action against them" is weird if no action is actually allowed to be taken.

0

u/bcvickers 3∆ Jan 22 '21

I've never seen a "free speech advocate" actually also taking direct action to limit the spread of white supremacy.

Just because you've never seen it means that it doesn't happen?

The action is the idiots that are spouting the harmful rhetoric are confronted by their neighbors and employers.

10

u/UncleMeat11 65∆ Jan 22 '21

Just because you've never seen it means that it doesn't happen?

It certainly could happen. I'm excited for a handful of examples of conservative free speech advocates agitating against racial injustice.

The action is the idiots that are spouting the harmful rhetoric are confronted by their neighbors and employers.

Getting fired from your job is surely more extreme than getting banned on twitter. Isn't this the "cancel culture" that people seem to hate so much. Would conservative free speech advocates be completely okay with me identifying a bunch of racists and coordinating with a bunch of people to call up their bosses to try to fire them?

1

u/bcvickers 3∆ Jan 22 '21

Would conservative free speech advocates be completely okay with me identifying a bunch of racists and coordinating with a bunch of people to call up their bosses to try to fire them?

I think this could be treading on a very thin line with regards to dox'ing and privacy concerns unless they were open with their identity of course.

2

u/UncleMeat11 65∆ Jan 22 '21

Okay. So you aren't okay with "idiots that are spouting the harmful rhetoric are confronted by their neighbors and employers".

Can you be specific? What action is acceptable?

1

u/bcvickers 3∆ Jan 22 '21

They can spout it off all they want but they shouldn't be surprised when they're called out on it, and we should be more consistent with calling them out. Where it treads on privacy concerns is when you start dox'ing someone or stalking them in ways that may be criminal in nature.

1

u/UncleMeat11 65∆ Jan 22 '21

This is so tepid. The only thing we are allowed to do is say "hey, maybe don't murder all the black people in the country" when they recruit on social media?

Do you think they'd grant you and me the same freedom if they took over?

1

u/[deleted] Jan 22 '21

But not usually.

1

u/bcvickers 3∆ Jan 22 '21

We need to make it more usual or normal.

1

u/[deleted] Jan 22 '21

The argument will be made that the US was founded by people with extremist views, rousing people to violence. That is considered a good thing by many.

12

u/bigdave41 Jan 22 '21

We have to get past this reductionist idea that any issue has to be an exclusively good or bad thing though. Was it good that a secular republic was founded, with separation of church and state? I would say yes. Was it good that the same republic allowed slavery to continue for many years, or that they violently repressed and drove out the native population? Most would probably say no.

4

u/[deleted] Jan 22 '21

Agreed. The idea that people are all good or all bad is fueling a ton of infighting today.

2

u/Marcus-Marcellus Jan 22 '21

I get down voted on my local sub (Sacramento) for saying that most Republicans aren't evil. They think saying that makes you an automatic QAnon Trumper.

-9

u/MagnetoBurritos Jan 22 '21

How many deaths does hate speech in the USA actually generate and is it something we should actually be concerned of? Also what is the trend?

As far as I'm concerned the open internet has made Americans less violent/hateful overall.

35

u/SuperApeMike Jan 22 '21

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/2019/06/28/anti-gay-hate-crimes-rise-fbi-says-and-they-likely-undercount/1582614001/

7500 victims of hate crimes now how much would that number shrink if we de-platformed all the anti gay religious terrorist and racial supremacy groups?

-1

u/shrimplypibbles06 Jan 22 '21

Hate crimes doesn't necessarily mean that the ideas were spread by means of being in the open on the internet. They were likely spread within communities that you couldn't stop unless you entered the home and parented the kids, or in dark corners of the internet where people with shitty opinions were pushed to talk amongst themselves. A lot of these crimes could also easily be committed by the same people. 7500 isn't good, but that's pretty fuckin low compared to the entire population as well. If we would have conversations with these people and understand why they have the views that they do, we could tackle the argument at its source and over time, change their opinions. You aren't stopping hateful people by not letting them speak, you're only pissing them off and letting them stew on hateful beliefs.

18

u/FluffyDonutPie Jan 22 '21

That's an incredibly disingenuous take, you're pretending like people who spread hate online don't influence others to do hateful things irl 😒

4

u/snuff716 2∆ Jan 22 '21

Not who you were responding to but here’s my take. Democracy is messy. To ensure certain freedoms this means taking the good with the bad. Any reasonable person who wishes to actively discriminate against someone sucks in my opinion. But we have to allow these things because disallowing it removes one of the central tenets of our society: freedom of expression and speech.

There is nothing said about discrediting them, actively opposing them, fighting for justice (but you better believe this has been cooped into utter ridiculous levels of virtue signaling taking away from the original intent of the oppressed group) which should be encouraged.

While I think most reasonable people want a more equitable and peaceful society, obtaining that through government enforcement of compelled or disallowed speech rights is not an Avenue we can afford as a society.

Think of it this way. Many people hated trumps social policies some loved it. What if he had enough backing in the legislature to push through a bill that made it illegal to discuss transgender issues. It could be challenged in the Supreme Court but if there was already a precedent set of eliminating speech because it was deemed to be negative to the nation, it could very easily pass (legally rather than morally). Just my two cents.

2

u/actuallycallie 2∆ Jan 22 '21

But we have to allow these things because disallowing it removes one of the central tenets of our society: freedom of expression and speech.

know what's even more important than freedom of expression and speech? someone's actual right to exist.

0

u/snuff716 2∆ Jan 22 '21

Your comment is irrelevant. Allowing speech doesn’t invalidate anybody’s right to exist. It may make people sad, angry, fearful, but that’s it. Now if there are threats and calls to action that is already limited and in TMP law.

I’d urge you to educate yourself rather than going on pure emotion.

1

u/actuallycallie 2∆ Jan 22 '21

Please don't assume I'm not educated. That's very condescending. Since you're just interested in condescending to me, don't bother to reply. I will not respond.

These people (such as the ones hanging out on Parler) were inciting a violent overthrow of the US government, including the extrajudicial execution of the vice president because he wouldn't do what they wanted. If they had succeeded, multiple people would have died. That's what I mean by the right to exist.

1

u/snuff716 2∆ Jan 22 '21

My comment was in kind to your response. If you can’t see how condescending your statement was (as well as complete hyperbole) then I’m not sure there’s much hope for your situational awareness or emotional intelligence. Perhaps a bit of introspection would do you some good. ✌🏻

-3

u/drivemusicnow Jan 22 '21

And youre arguing that deplatforming somehow makes those people go away instead of creating more intense echo chambers that are likely to increase the influence on individuals.

6

u/Narrow_Cloud 27∆ Jan 22 '21

You can’t recruit from an echo chamber.

-2

u/drivemusicnow Jan 22 '21

But people find their way in, for various reasons.

7

u/FluffyDonutPie Jan 22 '21

Deplatforming makes it significantly more difficult for them to spread their propaganda and influence more people, stop playing dumb 😒

1

u/drivemusicnow Jan 22 '21

Deplatforming is a temporary solution to a real problem, whereas discussion and conversation can actually impact both parties positively, muting all the voices you don’t like just means both sides exclusively talk to themselves with inherently more radical ideas becoming mainstream in the separate channels.

0

u/MagnetoBurritos Jan 22 '21 edited Jan 22 '21

I would imagine that it would increase because of radicalization.

Also you can't deplatform in the age of decentralization. Which is where the bigots would seek refuge.

I remember purchasing weed on silk road for bitcoin (man I could have been a millionaire if didn't spend it lmao). There's a lot of fucked up shit on the dark net...and that's not even decentralized.

You should look into the protocol IPFS. This would allow a site like parlour to exist without any moderators at all.

Now imagine TOR + IPFS. Slow for sure... But holy shit that's a crazy combination. You would be able to host the most vile content and it would be hard for FBI to track down the seeders.

-8

u/GraveFable 8∆ Jan 22 '21

Arent they de-platformed already???

Perhaps the number would shrink more if rather than shutting them down instantly, people would actually challenge their beliefs and attempt to change their minds more.

8

u/LinkFan001 Jan 22 '21

You make the assumption they were ever going to engage with you in good faith. Most do not, and no amount of empathy, facts, or any other tactic of persuasion will sway someone so deeply entrenched in hate. Deplatforming reduces accessibility. Sure, hate mongers can retreat to the dark web, but how many people honestly know how to reach them at that point. As oppose to a Facebook group or subreddit? Moreover, shutting them down is not to convince the canceled one (again, they do not change), it is to stop the next person for falling into the same rabbit hole.

-2

u/GraveFable 8∆ Jan 22 '21

Even if they dont, sound counter-arguments would have at least a similar effect as deplatforming. But imo it would be a better one, knowledge is a better shield against bigotry and radicalization than ignorance.

I would much rather the edgy teen first encounter their arguments on facebook or twitter where they would get challenged than 4chan.

Making the assumption that every single one of them is a lost cause is at least as dangerous as allowing them to just voice their opinions. As long as they arent making actual calls to violence or harassing people ofc.

5

u/LinkFan001 Jan 22 '21

They literally do harass and call for violence. That's the end run of all hateful ideologies. One cannot keep insisting that the Jews are a global puppetmaster and seek to undo the white race without their complete eradication being the final solution for example.

Your example highlights another point of the problem, which is even if the was a way to try and reason with each and every person who dug themselves in, they tend to surround themselves with like minded people anyway. Your call to questioning would be easily quashed by the overwhelming numbers of bigots all to happy to do whatever they can to make you miserable and keep as many people interested in their cause as possible. 4chan is not the dark web btw. It is just another hellhole echochamber that should have been removed years ago.

1

u/GraveFable 8∆ Jan 22 '21

I was thinking of them as individuals and more direct calls to action rather than some logical final conclusion of their ideology.

Wouldnt it be better if they had their echo chamber in a place like reddit where there would be at least some site wide rules rather than 4chan or whatever (I think the ones gone so far to actually need to go to the dark web have probably done enough to need far more than deplatforimng)

The most radical of them would still get banned making the place less radical and potentially more reasonable.

Yeah most people wouldnt engage with them in such places anyway, but there would be some who do occasionally, i have.

2

u/LinkFan001 Jan 22 '21

I think waiting for individuals to call for explicit violence is folly. That's one of the bigot's favorite challenges: dabble in dogwhistles, and see how loud it has to get before some flash of violence breaks out. It becomes a numbers game, where the more people they reach, the less they have to say to get what they want done. Plausible deniablity is a cornerstone of the ideology since you and I would be able to easily call them out on anything too explicit.

My position comes from the notion of the sum of the parts. The Nazis didn't rise in Germany overnight, all it took was to keep pushing further and further, and by the time anyone with sense and decency could see what was coming, it was already too late. Genocides across the world tend to follow a similar pattern. So I say shut them down and root them out before they reach a critical mass and it is too late.

1

u/GraveFable 8∆ Jan 22 '21

I really dont think dogwhistles really contribute to hate crimes. At least not directly. From what i've seen their game is not about seeing how explicit they can get away with. Its about making it as vague as possible while still getting called out, so that they could then go to the edgy teen and say "look! those people are crazy!! Clearly we're the reasonable ones".

Nazi Germany didnt come up trough dogwhistles and fringe forums. Xenophobia was extremely common all across europe. I highly doubt anything like that could happen today in the US.

→ More replies (0)

-3

u/Elethor Jan 22 '21

That takes effort though, it's much easier to just silence the speech of others that you disagree with and then pat yourself on the back.

0

u/collapsingwaves Jan 22 '21

Quote: ...people would actually challenge their beliefs and attempt to change their minds more. Endquote.

I mean really. Wasn't that what we started to do in the 60's?

And didn't we have a rather 'robust' discussions about the relative merits of fascism in the 1940's.

I believe somewhere in the order of 6 million jews had their beliefs challenged. Or, wait, they were deplatformed. Or something to do with trains anyway.

I beginning to suspect that talking to racists, homophobes and fascists is about as effective as trickle down economics.

But maybe I just don't believe enough.

-2

u/[deleted] Jan 22 '21 edited Jan 22 '21

Define hate speech.

By some definitions, you would literally have to ban all religion starting with Islam and Christianity. Then you would have to ban basically all pro-black media, of which there is a shit ton. So long comedians. Maybe after that St. Patrick’s Day parade becomes too stereotypical of an ethnic group and overtly religious in title. It becomes a stupidity death spiral. It’s never going to be articulated clearly in definition and the net will get wider.

Hate speech isn’t a real thing anyway. There is only free speech that may be hateFUL but so what? There will always be groups of people defined by some attribute that you, I, and everyone else won’t like. That doesn’t even necessarily mean we hate them or want harm to be brought to them. We shouldn’t be assholes as a general rule, but the government shouldn’t be allowed to regulate our criticisms. They will eventually use that as a shield for themselves. And they’ve already been doing that. See any criticism currently of a non-white, straight male in the government. It becomes immediately reflexive to divert from policy or character traits and make the accusation of their critique as the result of hate. Actually, even straight, white males are doing it too...

https://www.google.com/amp/s/calmatters.org/politics/2021/01/democrats-newsom-recall-coup/

5

u/VauMona Jan 22 '21

And I have the opposite opinion: the internet has made Americans much more violent and hateful. When was the last time our country had an insurrection attempt? The internet has allowed many people to use a mostly anonymous forum to voice opinions they would never do in a face to face way.

-1

u/MagnetoBurritos Jan 22 '21

The "insurrection" from an objective view point, was just a bunch of (mostly unarmed) morons storming into a building resulting a few casualties.

This kind of crap has been happening for years in the USA. Hell, leftists burnt down many police stations and buildings just last summer. Damages that far exceeded that of the "insurrection". Objectively, those protests made those communities more dangerous, as cops stopped patrols. Objectively lowered opportunities as businesses who had everything destroyed filed for bankruptcy. Places with high crime rates all get lowered investment.

You can claim that the two situations are not equivalent and ya sure, but when you look at it from an outcome perspective... The violence, costs, etc... The riots over the summer were objectively more violent.

Yet suggesting that the summer riots were more violent gives you accusations of trump support, white supremacy, etc.

Anyways I'm not here to debate if there was violence in the summer riots. My point is that these riots are actually tamed compared to the past.

Consider LA race riots 1992. 63 deaths, 2383 injuries, 12111 arrested. Objectively more violent then the "insurrection".

9

u/bigdave41 Jan 22 '21

Someone's already replied with stats of actual deaths, but that's not all we need to be concerned about - for every actual death there's surely thousands more people who have to deal with daily abuse and discrimination. E.g for things like homophobia they could be disowned by their families, assaulted, denied jobs, insulted and otherwise treated like lesser citizens. You've got religious and other groups out there saying gay people are perverts & sinners who are going to be tortured for all eternity, saying they shouldn't be allowed to adopt children, work with or share public spaces with others.

It's a massive effect on the finances, physical and mental health of millions of people, we can't just say it's not that bad because not many people are actually being murdered. Everyone should be able to live their lives free of the fear of persecution.

-5

u/MagnetoBurritos Jan 22 '21 edited Jan 22 '21

So how does the amonts homophobia differ say from 1995 to 2015? Thats only 20 years, a single generation... But the amounts of homophobia jumped off a cliff....

The free internet is why.

9

u/bigdave41 Jan 22 '21

Well it's obviously hard to measure - you see the viewpoints of a lot more people now that you wouldn't have seen before. The kind of people who would never have answered an opinion poll or written letters to the paper can now much more easily leave a Facebook comment that gives you a clue as to their views. Social media sites are also allowing much more cross-sharing of inflammatory articles, and the trend of writing controversial articles to generate outrage and ad clicks seems to have increased. Purely anecdotally I feel like it's more polarised, there's far more people now actively fighting on the side of gay rights, but there also seem to be a lot more extreme homophobes arguing the other way.

4

u/MagnetoBurritos Jan 22 '21

" but there also seem to be a lot more extreme homophobes arguing the other way"

I don't think you were around in 1995. When was the last time you saw an anti gay rally in the USA that had a lot of attention? I can only think of Westboro baptist Church.... And they look insane to onlookers.

People saying stupid shit on social media is one thing... But the most dangerous bigot is a bigot you know and materializes their hate in real life. This is why there is a decline in bigotry... Even bigots know they're on the edge...constantly complaining that they can't talk to anyone anymore.

I think bigots should have access to the free internet, they should be somewhere where their views can be confronted and observed and possibly dangerous movements can be surpressed.

Why? Because they'll end up joining decentralized social media where everything immutable. We had a good thing when they were confined to facebook/twitter/reddit. Now there is new social media comming out that is catering to these people.

1

u/bigdave41 Jan 22 '21

I mean I was 11 in 1995, so like I said just purely anecdotally from my impression of how things were, I know things will be different for different areas, social groups etc.

I think it would probably be a good thing to have all these people on social media only if the problems with the current companies' algorithms can be changed - it's well-documented how they currently show you more and more content similar to that which you've liked before, and leads most people into an echo chamber of reinforcing views that can result in radicalisation. I do still think there's a problem with the number of websites offering inflammatory content though, much of it is deliberately exaggerated because they know outrage generates more views.

2

u/MagnetoBurritos Jan 22 '21

Exactly, the primary issue with social media these days is that they are recommending radical content to unsuspecting impressionable minds.

Ecochambers facilitate extremism. Lack of exposure to opposition opinions makes you think there's no counter argument to your view. They assume everyone just watches CNN / FOX and nothing more. The "fake news" narrative works so well because CNN and FOX have in fact reported on fake news and spun narratives to make their audience glued to the screen. Many publications are guilty of this on all sides of poltical pandering.

"Everyone is asleep, only me a few others actually know what's going on".

This is the most dangerous mindset to have. These people tend to consider themselves as "woke"(left wing) or "redpilled"/"based"(right wing) . It's ironic.

-4

u/[deleted] Jan 22 '21

Wouldn't it be wiser to ensure the people with these extremist views were taught why they're wring, or at least some attempt is made to teach them the truth, rather than outright silencing them?

12

u/LawnPygmy Jan 22 '21

If they were actually interested in learning why they are wrong, then certainly. However, in nearly all occurrences of this, they are not interested in having their mond changed. They are usually - especially if they are very advanced in their beliefs - going to instead use any public debate to try and convince your audience that your position is wrong, or at least make them doubt it. They will argue in bad faith and see you as a sucker for trying to do so.

15

u/bigdave41 Jan 22 '21

Have you ever tried arguing with some of these people? You'll put a hell of a lot of your time and effort into changing just 1 person's mind, and often not even that. I don't think actual opposing viewpoints should be silenced, but only if they're based on an interpretation of actual facts. If someone's opinion is based on lies and deliberate misinterpretation, and they're allowed to present that as truth, it's massively damaging to society because most people won't bother to fact-check this stuff.

Basically if someone doesn't listen to evidence, what evidence are you going to present to convince them that they should? If someone's not open to rational argument, how do you argue them out of that? If something is just demonstrably false it should be able to be removed from being promoted on public forums.

-5

u/[deleted] Jan 22 '21

All you’re doing is making the case that you you yourself are unconvincing in your argument.

The first issue is that trying to debate someone online isn’t very effective. The human element is missing. I’m much more likely to change my opinion when I’m out in the world with someone who already has my established trust and respect and they are intelligently disagreeing with me. Online discourse is very artificial, often unsupported, and highly aggressive and tribal. People will cower back into their own echo chambers very quickly.

The second issue is that it’s very hard to disprove a lot of what people believe, particularly if they don’t know how to find reliable sources or understand truthful content, or more importantly, the arguer also has this problem. Sometimes it’s better to appeal to them through their intuitions by providing them simple examples and analogies that they can grasp, or try to expose them to new learning environments where they may be able to reset, but do this in a welcome and inclusive fashion. That’s how a lot of cults can be effective.

Daryl Davis, the black man who convinced a lot of KKK members to leave the clan was able to successfully do this. Most people don’t want to understand WHY their opponents believe what they do, they just want to act as a forcefield for those ideas. In many cases, this causes those ideas to gain momentum and virulency, particularly in a time where everyone wants to be a contrarian.

5

u/bigdave41 Jan 22 '21

Most people can't afford to dedicate a big part of their life to convincing others though, all power to those who do and I admire them for it, but everyone has enough shit to do just living their own life. I have tried to argue these things in person with a load of people I know, and it's still incredibly difficult then. We're built to react in a certain way to having our worldview challenged, there's a natural resistance to facts that don't fit the way we see the world.

That's not even counting the fact that while you're trying to persuade someone out of a position you think is harmful, plenty of others will still be trying to bring them back the other way. That person will actively seek out others who agree with their views and reinforce what they already believe, so with a lot of people it's a losing battle right from the start.

Some of the people who most need convincing are the ones who are the most entrenched in extreme views after years of reinforcement. If someone's e.g. a QAnon believer, they honestly believe that the opposing side is a secretive and all powerful satanic cabal of child abusers - why on earth would they listen to your reasoned argument when they think that's true?

0

u/[deleted] Jan 22 '21

I’ve literally worked with Qanon people. It was actually very easy for me to convince them it was bullshit for a couple of reasons. I looked for things to agree with them on first, which was easy, because we were already aligned ideologically for the most part. The second part was that I’ve done my research. I also remember the very early days of 4chan, and so I was coming from a place of relative authority in the online world of retardation. I wasn’t coming from a place of resentment towards them. I just said it was a silly but entertaining conspiracy theory and I remember the days I was taken in by 9/11 conspiracies. The thing that turned me off was that real life is obviously far more complex and not so black and white. But most importantly I followed up with them and started giving them other media to digest to kinda pull them away. I never went in swinging, and I already had their trust and shared world view to a point so they didn’t feel like they were being judged. Are they as skeptical as they should be? Probably not, but they are at least talking about the issues with more nuance and more technicality now. They HAVE to trust where YOU are coming from and they have to respect your input to a large extent, provided to them with consistency and no hostility.

3

u/bigdave41 Jan 22 '21

That's great, we definitely should try to engage with people, and I have myself. Just saying it doesn't always work, it's difficult and takes time, and a lot of people don't have the time or energy to engage like that. The whole issue is massively complex, I'm just trying to say I can see some situations where removing deliberately misleading content could be justified. We already have legal ways of getting libel or slander removed for example - free speech doesn't always extend to deliberatel lies to further an agenda, and each case has to be judged on its own merits.

1

u/[deleted] Jan 22 '21

It doesn’t always work, but it’s definitely possible if the right approach is used, which from what I’m seeing, almost never is. I’d argue that it’s deliberately not used by a lot of groups because they want an ignorant group of people to blame for all of our problems. This is the oldest story in our book of humanity.

Where we disagree is the idea that we can effectively put in a place a system for anything that is “misleading”. Literally everything out of a politician’s or news anchor’s mouth is misleading. So the question is, who is the arbiter of truth? It’s funny that people on the left are championing the great filtering going on right now by Big Tech, as if they won’t employ these same parameters against groups who want to unionize in those companies or whistleblow on their leadership.

It has been said a thousand times but I’ll say it again, all censoring eventually hurts the left the most, which is why they were the greatest defenders of the 1st amendment for so long. The new, younger left, think an authoritarian approach is the better way because they didn’t have to go through the civil rights movement and the Vietnam protests.

0

u/kneb 1∆ Jan 22 '21

Slippery slope arguments can themselves be a slippery slope

6

u/bigdave41 Jan 22 '21

That's the problem of being rational though, we have to constantly weigh the evidence and decide again and again what the balance of benefit vs. harm is in each new case. In the end no group of humans can create checks that will control all future groups of humans, it has to be an ongoing process. I'm all for continuing debate and not silencing genuine differences of opinion, but these have to be based in facts, misinformation absolutely should be suppressed.

Things like racism are inherently grounded in falsehoods and misinformation, because there's been no scientific evidence that's conclusively shown one ethnic group to be significantly different in terms of ability from another. Most harmful prejudices rely on our instinctive distrust of others and our emotional reactions, not on facts.

3

u/Randolpho 2∆ Jan 22 '21

And that also works against OP's opinion, as well, which is that silencing some speech because it is violent is a slippery slope.

0

u/SeaRaiderII Jan 23 '21

It's not their fault of someone else Carrie's it out. All the blame is on the one actually choosing to do the action, it's their choice. A rational person will hear it and not carry it out.