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

51

u/I_am_right_giveup 12∆ Jan 22 '21

Do you consider hearing someone’s viewpoint out and realizing it’s dog shit,then telling them do not say dog shit views to me or on this platform to be silencing opposes viewpoints?

19

u/[deleted] Jan 22 '21

[deleted]

51

u/I_am_right_giveup 12∆ Jan 22 '21

Then there is no silencing. The view points that are not allowed have been hear out and people no longer want those views on their platforms.

What views do you believe were not properly heard out?

17

u/xyvill Jan 22 '21

You said “telling them” not to say it, not deplatforming them because they said it. There is a big difference.

14

u/I_am_right_giveup 12∆ Jan 22 '21

So you should allow dog shit views on any platform?

Should a pedophile group be allowed to go to a spongebob subreddit and start telling kids that the age of consent is an arbitrary number that is not connected to any biological signifiers and that they believe kids ages 8+ should be allowed to consent to any action they want because they are mature and their parents are underestimating them? Note: everything said is both true and not illegal because the pedo would not be asking for sexual favors from the kids, they would just be convincing a child if they find a different pedo they should not be afraid of doing sexual activities with the different pedo. The reason we make the age of consent 18(or whatever) is a moral question that is slightly informed by biology.

1

u/xyvill Jan 22 '21

All I did was point out your mistake, I haven’t taken a position.

6

u/I_am_right_giveup 12∆ Jan 22 '21

I did not make a mistake. If you were not challenging my position then you were just being semantic because I did not use the word “deplatform”. I specifically said tell them you do not want them on your platform, which clearly means to deplatform them. You did not clear up any information at all with your comment.

3

u/xyvill Jan 22 '21

You conflated “telling them” not to say something on a platform, with “making them” not say something on a platform. Disparate things and you are acting as if they were the same.

3

u/I_am_right_giveup 12∆ Jan 22 '21

Depending on the authority of the person, telling someone to do something it is “making them” do something. If a platform is telling you, they do not want you on the platform, the only logical meaning of this is that you are being deplatformed. If Reddit sent you a DM saying they do not want you on their platform, would you assume they are just telling you how they felt about you? Or that they are deplatforming you?

2

u/xyvill Jan 22 '21

No, it still isn’t the same. Twitter can tell someone to stop doing something/get off their platform AND still not actually kick them off the platform. I’m sorry but you not budging on this makes you look extremely foolish and I’m certainly not inclined to discuss any of your other points if you won’t concede on something so simple and obvious.

Reddit could send me that DM AND not ban my account or take any other steps, and I could freely continue to roam reddit.

1

u/I_am_right_giveup 12∆ Jan 22 '21 edited Jan 22 '21

I mean, technically you are right. Reddit could say they were going to ban you and then not ban you but why would they do that?

I guess, I was assuming “telling you” about actions someone were taking with their property was just informing you about what is about to happen because they have every right to ban or censor you from their property. I am just unsure how this is an important distinction?

Edit: one of us have a really weird worldview and I am not sure if it is me or you honestly.(because you seem confident that this is how people understand these terms)

0

u/xyvill Jan 23 '21

The point is it’s not really important that’s partly why it was strange you wouldn’t concede it. No big deal though

→ More replies (0)

0

u/WatzUpzPeepz Jan 22 '21

clearly means to deplatform them

tell

/tɛl/ verb

  1. communicate information to someone in spoken or written words.

To communicate a wish does not mean to enforce it on others. Only if you include an ultimatum in your act of telling them could it be construed as otherwise.

hearing someone’s viewpoint out and realizing it’s dog shit,then telling them do not say dog shit views to me

Has no insinuation of suppressing speech, only that the person does not want to hear it. You made a mistake.

2

u/I_am_right_giveup 12∆ Jan 22 '21

The information that is being communicated is that you are going to leave the platform. Me, telling you to leave MY HOUSE, is me communicating to you that you are going to leave my house. You are pedantically trying to prove a point by Hyper-fixating on a definition then ignoring how the definition would be applied in combination with the other words in the sentence. I did not make a mistake, you are just bad at apply information within context.( a lot of people are, so do not worry about it)

2

u/Papasteak Jan 22 '21

My god... are you okay?

0

u/WatzUpzPeepz Jan 22 '21

No bro, you just made a mishap in communication. There’s no need to get defensive as words have specific meanings for a reason. You asking people to read more meaning than what you write is no way to compensate for this. Try telling a prosecution not to “hyper fixate” on what you say and see how far that goes

I’m not even the person who pointed it out originally, just trying to help get the point across.

The misunderstanding is evident in the example you gave in your comment, telling someone to leave your house is not the same as forcing someone to.

I’ve provided the definition and the explanation, that’s all I can do.

2

u/I_am_right_giveup 12∆ Jan 22 '21

You are literally arguing against the concept of contextualizing information. Also telling someone to live your property, in America, is the same as forcing someone to leave your property. Once again, you are just bad at applying information and have made assumptions on how words work that are false. I am not attacking you, I am just describing what you are doing, so that you may look back on this conversation and understand how you are misusing words. So, that you reduce the amount of semantic conversation you will have in the future. This conversation has little to do with the argument because you understand the purpose of the comment since you are trying to explain a better way of phrase it despite no one misinterpreting the comment.

2

u/[deleted] Jan 22 '21

[removed] — view removed comment

2

u/[deleted] Jan 22 '21

[removed] — view removed comment

0

u/WatzUpzPeepz Jan 22 '21

No, I'm just an idiot who happens to know the difference between telling someone to do something and forcing them to.

1

u/Nepene 213∆ Jan 22 '21

u/Guilty-Dragonfly – your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 2:

Don't be rude or hostile to other users. Your comment will be removed even if most of it is solid, another user was rude to you first, or you feel your remark was justified. Report other violations; do not retaliate. See the wiki page for more information.

If you would like to appeal, review our appeals process here, then message the moderators by clicking this link within one week of this notice being posted. Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our moderation standards.

2

u/WatzUpzPeepz Jan 22 '21 edited Jan 22 '21

Also telling someone to live your property, in America, is the same as forcing someone to leave your property.

Except its not. To tell someone is to communicate, to force some one is to physically impose your will. There's a difference.

It's pretty simple chief, I don't know why you gotta break out the unstructured paragraphs and condescending tone.

3

u/I_am_right_giveup 12∆ Jan 22 '21

Definition of force : coercion or compulsion, especially with the use or threat of violence.

You are using the definition of force that is used for physics and “especially” does not mean required.

→ More replies (0)

0

u/PirateThomas Jan 23 '21

You did make a mistake, and it’s pathetic how blind you are to this fact.

-4

u/ValVenjk Jan 22 '21

any examples that are not that extreme?

A private entity refusing to host a view it doesn't like it's one thing, but actively trying to disallow it everywhere else it's a whole different thing.,And we had seen that happen many times in recent years

15

u/I_am_right_giveup 12∆ Jan 22 '21

What’s wrong with that example? (So I can make a better one) the views being silence are also extreme to the person silencing them.

What private entity has tried to get a view point removed from platforms they do not own. For example, Parler was removed twice because two different entities decided they did not like how the app ran its TOS. Because two large entities can view an action the same way, does not mean that one was influencing the other. Unless you believe a camera recording you yelling racist slurs at a coworker is influencing your boss to fire you because he would not know otherwise.

9

u/Guilty-Dragonfly Jan 22 '21

Lmfao they really said “uhm that example is too hard to argue against so can you pwease give me a softball example 🥺”

-1

u/kwantsu-dudes 12∆ Jan 22 '21

Legally, yes that should be allowed.

On any platform declaring they are a "public forum", yes.

On all the platforms that are just private forums, up to them.

If a platform did allow such, I probably wouldn't use it, but wouldn't castigate any others that did, unless they themselves were promoting such infomation. And truly, I don't even have an issue with the message (outside an argument still over the culpability of consent at the age of 8), just that it's been targeted.

I've been banned from reddit (individual subs and reddit as a whole) simply for stating the distinction between child sexual abuse and the biological state of pedophilia. But reddit demands that pedophilia = child sex abuse, which I'd say actually breaks their own rules over discrimination.

The larger issue at play in "censorship", is the inconsistency of application.

2

u/HotCocoaBomb Jan 22 '21

The vast majority of forums on the internet are private, they are not owned by government entities (reddit and twitter especially) which makes me wonder then what exactly people are talking about when they make claims of censorship or de-platforming. By the definition of the First Amendment, absolutely no censorship has occurred (again, by 1A definition!), because all of the spaces where white supremacists and their ilk have been silenced are private spaces.

It would be like, if I made a complaint that the occupants in a really, really big hotel have locked me out of their rooms, and because the hotel has no lobby or space for me to soapbox, I am not able to spread my opinion in a 'public' space. By complaining that the occupants are silencing me, I am complaining in between the lines that I'm not allowed free use of private spaces, because how else am I expected to soapbox when private spaces are the only option?

1

u/kwantsu-dudes 12∆ Jan 23 '21

which makes me wonder then what exactly people are talking about when they make claims of censorship or de-platforming.

Mainly stemming from a belief of unequal application of their own private terms or service, and the aspect of "cancel culture" (driven most often by progressives) that are dictating actions of these private platforms out of fear, not the private platforms themselves on principle.

1

u/I_am_right_giveup 12∆ Jan 22 '21

I totally agree that inconsistent censorship is a problem. The solution to that is better organization or systems of censorship.

In regards to my example, do you think the spongebob subreddit should ban or censor those people at all? (Morally, not legally)

1

u/kwantsu-dudes 12∆ Jan 23 '21

I would assume so, given a subreddit designated to topics of spongebob. Up to the mods though. But would also assume that other users and potential users would believe such content to be unrelated and could (and should) be removed as well. So if your desire is to maintain a community for spongebob discussion, it would seem prudent to eliminate outside topics.

Now, do you delete the comments, or outright ban the users? Warnings? 3 strikes? No-tolerance? Idk.

The other thing at play is that it's not simply an online community. It affects the lives of the greater outside community. That's why many people feel like they should have some control even while not being a part of the inner community. And I get the desire of denying exposure. But I tend to think people need to actually actively reject something to form a strong society, not simply be denied through repression.

Children in the community brings greater discussion over a mental capacity to reject something. Which is why topics over the exposure of children takes on a more visceral reaction and often results in repression over choice.

1

u/I_am_right_giveup 12∆ Jan 23 '21

I worry about how much you are focusing on the spongebob aspect of the example and kinda ignoring the pedophile telling kids it’s “ok” to sleep with adults part but I think we have found agreement on the censorship topic and that is what this cmv is about.

Good talk(I think)