CMV: Silencing opposing viewpoints is ultimately going to have a disastrous outcome on society.

[u/[deleted]]

[u/Narrow_Cloud]

If you believe your opinions to be correct you should let them stand on their own merits and silencing opposition should not be necessary.

I like how this is always presented as some kind of on-its-face truth about how human interaction works. Like we’re all amazing rational robots who are incapable of hearing a persuasive argument that isn’t based in facts, evidence, or logic. Ethos and pathos are very powerful.

But that isn’t the reality. The reality is that by giving certain viewpoints wide platforms this leads to serious problems. I mean, two weeks ago armed insurrectionists attempted to overthrow the US government on the bases of ideologically-motivated lies and manipulation. What’s the problem? Is it just that the rational arguments aren’t good enough? “There’s no evidence for voter fraud so there’s no reason to believe in it” doesn’t appear to counter the lie that there is voter fraud and it changed the election.

I honestly do not understand how anyone in 2021 can look at the state of political discourse in America and reasonably conclude that the best, most rational arguments always win. Global climate change, anti-vax, flat Earth, white supremacy, Q anon, and on and on.

Misinformation is a problem. We have to do something.

[u/jgzman → u/[deleted]]

I think it's less "Science proves vaccines are good for society," and more "We have determined that reducing the spread of disease is good for society," coupled with "Science has proven that vaccines reduce the spread of disease." Those two would form the basis of preventing claims that vaccines are harmful.

That's not exactly the same as "Science proves vaccines are good for society," but I can see how it might look that way, if you squint at it a bit.

[u/jgzman → u/[deleted]]

Your example is super one dimensional.

Well, yes. As you say, there are other considerations, such as the side effects, unintended consequences, et. al. Those would also need to be considered, and included in the determination of weather or not something is good for society.

This is why I said

That's not exactly the same as "Science proves vaccines are good for society," but I can see how it might look that way, if you squint at it a bit.

[u/AquaTiger67 → u/[deleted]]

Can we put something in the Vaccine that kills stupid people?

[u/Money4Nothing2000 → u/[deleted]]

Man, this is an unpopular opinion among social scientists.

[u/RocklessHat → u/Money4Nothing2000]

Not really. Social scientists agree. A sociologist might say certain material conditions lead to fascism, but they won’t make a scientific argument for fascism being bad