4 ms·

No actual Worse outcome? What will happen the day Facebook will start censoring any pro-gun content? This slippery slope will create an even bigger divide in so

No actual Worse outcome? What will happen the day Facebook will start censoring any pro-gun content? This slippery slope will create an even bigger divide in society. As soon as you decide that some content is forbidden and off limit, people that want to have a debate about that content will now be in a group that is viewed as "fringe and off limit". This can only lead to group thinking, civil war and civil unrest. The only good way to address this is to let people speech and prove them wrong by having a civil debate.

s73v3r_ 8y ago
"What will happen the day Facebook will start censoring any pro-gun content?" Then we cross that bridge when we get to it. But I find this idea that they'll leap straight from banning people harassing the survivors of mass shootings to banning all gun content absolutely idiotic. Like, far beyond the "slippery slope" stuff that normally gets thrown out. "The only good way to address this is to let people speech and prove them wrong by having a civil debate." I'm pretty sure the last 10 years or so have proven that false. See: GamerGate.
- meowface 8y ago
  >I'm pretty sure the last 10 years or so have proven that false. See: GamerGate. From what I've seen, a lot of GamerGaters actually did leave the "movement" after civil and reasonable debate. I personally know several such people. In fact, partly as a result of civil debate, the movement effectively died, with the only people remaining being the most diehard misogynists and alt-righters. Those people's minds may never be changed regardless of what they're participating in, but many of the more moderate people who participated definitely did shift their opinions and abandoned it. The idea that you shouldn't engage with people you disagree with (let alone that such people should be banned from platforms you use) because they're irredeemable is usually quite wrong. Obviously there will be certain people out there who are so extreme and so indoctrinated that it's nearly impossible to change their mind, but even then, it happens. Daryl Davis, a black man, befriended KKK members and convinced over 200 to leave the KKK. Phelps family members have permanently left the Westboro Baptist Church Louis Theroux's after calmly debating people on Twitter. Louis Theroux's documentaries might interest you, because things like that are basically his bread and butter. The post you're replying to is making a pretty ridiculous leap (pro-gun content isn't nearly as controversial as school shooting conspiracy theories and would not be banned in pretty much any hypothetical), but their point is that the best response to speech you disagree with is more speech, not banned speech.
- ironjunkie 8y ago
  What you suggest is pushing the line little by little until it is way too late and it got way too far. The line should never be pushed to start with.
  - s73v3r_ 8y ago
    No, what I'm suggesting is that we, as humans, use our capacity for critical thought, and evaluate situations based on the context around them, instead of giving up and pretending that we're not able to do that.

s73v3r_ 8y ago

"What will happen the day Facebook will start censoring any pro-gun content?" Then we cross that bridge when we get to it. But I find this idea that they'll leap straight from banning people harassing the survivors of mass shootings to banning all gun content absolutely idiotic. Like, far beyond the "slippery slope" stuff that normally gets thrown out. "The only good way to address this is to let people speech and prove them wrong by having a civil debate." I'm pretty sure the last 10 years or so have proven that false. See: GamerGate.

meowface 8y ago
>I'm pretty sure the last 10 years or so have proven that false. See: GamerGate. From what I've seen, a lot of GamerGaters actually did leave the "movement" after civil and reasonable debate. I personally know several such people. In fact, partly as a result of civil debate, the movement effectively died, with the only people remaining being the most diehard misogynists and alt-righters. Those people's minds may never be changed regardless of what they're participating in, but many of the more moderate people who participated definitely did shift their opinions and abandoned it. The idea that you shouldn't engage with people you disagree with (let alone that such people should be banned from platforms you use) because they're irredeemable is usually quite wrong. Obviously there will be certain people out there who are so extreme and so indoctrinated that it's nearly impossible to change their mind, but even then, it happens. Daryl Davis, a black man, befriended KKK members and convinced over 200 to leave the KKK. Phelps family members have permanently left the Westboro Baptist Church Louis Theroux's after calmly debating people on Twitter. Louis Theroux's documentaries might interest you, because things like that are basically his bread and butter. The post you're replying to is making a pretty ridiculous leap (pro-gun content isn't nearly as controversial as school shooting conspiracy theories and would not be banned in pretty much any hypothetical), but their point is that the best response to speech you disagree with is more speech, not banned speech.
ironjunkie 8y ago
What you suggest is pushing the line little by little until it is way too late and it got way too far. The line should never be pushed to start with.
- s73v3r_ 8y ago
  No, what I'm suggesting is that we, as humans, use our capacity for critical thought, and evaluate situations based on the context around them, instead of giving up and pretending that we're not able to do that.