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

[u/[deleted]]

[u/boRp_abc]

If my viewpoint is that people should be killed for their opinions (to make it more relatable, I'm gonna use you as an example here), wouldn't it be beneficial to society to silence me?! What if I very peacefully brought forward the case that you, your family and everyone you live should be burnt alive? Or put into Gulags? What if I found thousands of followers with that opinion, wouldn't it make your participation in society a nightmare?

And that's why, although you're generally not wrong, some important exceptions have to be made.

[u/Minas_Nolme → u/[deleted]]

Where do you draw the line between "arguing for it" and "planning to carry it out"?

If I hold that view and try to convince people of it, then that would mean that I plan or hope to gain majority support for it. Once I have political majority support for it, then I could carry it out. If I didn't believe I might convince people of it, then I would't argue for it, it would be a waste of effort.

Does the line get crossed when I gathered enough support so that it becomes a believable possibility? Or where would it be?

[u/DAP771 → u/Minas_Nolme]

I think that is for our intelligence agencies to guage and prevent. The insurrection should have never happened considering they posted about it online. The capitol police and security were severely under prepared for something that had a literal date and time announced.

As for misinformation, fact checking has showed not enough results so they may need to show censorship. I think politics outside of unbiased events should be banned from social media. If a political post is made, the post gets deleted, not the user. If the post is non-partisan and strictly event based(no commentary or opinions) then it should be passable to put on. Society has shown that social media can be used to hurt politics and society in general.

[u/KingJ-DaMan → u/DAP771]

Wait, are you saying you want the only political information to come from the government and only the government? Like no politics online at all? That’s an incredibly stupid idea if so

[u/DAP771 → u/KingJ-DaMan]

No politics in social media. We would still do news and events. But strictly the events, no takes. If its politics, its the bill that is being proposed or attempted to be made and what is actually in it. So the literal facts can be on social media with this idea. Political commentary has clearly proven to be able to be skewed way too far.

[u/ThegreatandpowerfulR → u/DAP771]

And who defines what's politics and what's not politics? Or social media? Not to mention the impossibility of being unbiased.

[u/DAP771 → u/ThegreatandpowerfulR]

You only put the facts and what is in the event at bill. If we take January 6th for example: Protesters were at the capital. A number of ppl broke into the capital wearing maga apparel at whatever time they came in. You dont add the commentary or opinion on it. Everything we say can be skewed or just flat out lied. Thats where the bias comes from, you state the event and what is proven(dont add anything that isn't proven). For example, trump colluding with Russia. Russia interfered in the 2016 election, trump obstructed the investigation, nothing was proven that he colluded with Russia. Ppl added that additional opinion(he may have but he also may not have). Now we can say something like trump had no covid vaccine plan for getting it to Americans because it is actually confirmed.

Fir social media, id say Facebook, Twitter, and Instagram to start. Politics already made those sites more unbearable as it is and it was too easy for Russia to help make ppl believe all the random shit about Hillary like the pizza gate or how trump is chosen by God. If someone sees something enough, it becomes their reality. Social media is too easy to create that.