7 ms·

> A common argument in philosophy is that bad ideas should occur in the open - where everyone may ridicule them. Not to get too far off topic, but is this actu

> A common argument in philosophy is that bad ideas should occur in the open - where everyone may ridicule them. Not to get too far off topic, but is this actually true in practice in the real world? Scientific studies have shown that the idea that gets repeated the most often is the idea that "wins". A bad idea gets repeated and spread every time it gets criticized. If the idea proves more "credible" than the criticism of it, then all that criticism does is contribute to the spread of the idea it's trying to kill.

komali2 8y ago
I would like to know this as well. Case in point, when I was a kindergarten teacher, kids wouldn't have a concept of race. I'd have white girls asking me if I could put their hair in braids like "the tan girls." But by 4th grade I'd be teaching about slavery, racism, etc, and the kids would be then learning about a concept that was utterly nonsensical to the non-racism-indoctrinated kids. So I'm wondering what would happen if I never taught about racism at all.
- deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]
- holtalanm 8y ago
  Unfortunately, a lot of racism is picked up at home.
- NTDF9 8y ago
  Man, I grew up in a third world country where race was a complete non-issue (unless your color made you stick out like a sore thumb, in which case, you'd be a celebrity, not get picked on). Coming to the US is what made me encounter racism. American society really is broken from within when third world countries can get around this but America can't.
  - cdubzzz 8y ago
    I think this is a bit of apples and oranges. There are vast differences between pretty much any two cultures. I spent three years living and working in a third world county where I “stuck out like a sore thumb”. Most people I met assumed I was rich, despite living and working on the equivalent of a local secondary school teacher’s salary. And this was still a hell of a lot more than most people in the country were making, but my local counterparts did not have to constantly deny requests for money and things from strangers. Perhaps a more apt comparison to racism in the US would be sexism in the country I worked in. Men would cat call women constantly to ask for (or demand) sex and marriage. This was just an accepted and normal part of the culture there. It was crazy.
    - NTDF9 8y ago
      Well, the question is specifically discrimination on the basis of race, so apples to apples there. Maybe other countries score lower in sexism. (btw America does too, we all know that :) ) However, it still doesn't take away the fact that the extent of racism in America is far too high for a first world country. As much as it pains me to say this, at a societal level, I don't see any difference between my third world country of birth and America. The only difference between my home country and USA is interstate highways.
      - komali2 8y ago
        Do the people downvoting this disagree that America has too much of a racism problem for a first world country, or what's going on here?
        NTDF9 8y ago
        > Do the people downvoting this disagree that America has too much of a racism problem for a first world country, or what's going on here? Unfortunately, that has been my experience. A lot of seemingly well-intentioned Americans refuse to accept their follies. They are completely unaware/unwilling to admit that the rest of the world is watching what's happening in America. This is possibly due to the ingrained, "American exceptionalism" belief but I am willing to be proven wrong. As a comparison, see this Brazilian admitting flaws in Brazil: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17735229 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17735229 But Americans admitting racism? Nope.
- forapurpose 8y ago
  > by 4th grade I'd be teaching about slavery, racism, etc, and the kids would be then learning about a concept that was utterly nonsensical to the non-racism-indoctrinated kids. So I'm wondering what would happen if I never taught about racism at all. Assuming these kids are in the U.S., then you omitting the topic from their 4th grade class would only omit a tiny portion of what they encounter in their lives. If my 4th grade teacher omitted something from history class, I don't think it's possible that I've never learned about it (assuming it has some significance).
koube 8y ago
This called the Rebound effect[0]. There is a Debunking Handbook[1] for dealing with this phenomenon. There is also the idea that a lie travels around the globe while the truth is putting on its shoes, which spurred /r/AskHistorians to ban holocaust denial[2]. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rebound_effect https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rebound_effect [1] https://www.skepticalscience.com/docs/Debunking_Handbook.pdf https://www.skepticalscience.com/docs/Debunking_Handbook.pdf [2] https://slate.com/technology/2018/07/the-askhistorians-subreddit-banned-holocaust-deniers-and-facebook-should-too.html https://slate.com/technology/2018/07/the-askhistorians-subre...
- deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]
- moomin 8y ago
  Now figure out how debunking works when the guy putting out hate speech can block at will and/or controls the website.
- datenwolf 8y ago
  Without judging on the validity of some of the statements made/cited in the "Debunking Handbook", I can't help but wonder, how many of the psychological experimented mentioned in it are part of the reproducibility crisis. Reading that handbook, whenever a social experiment and its outcome was mentioned, my initial thought was: "Hmm, interesting. I'd like to reproduce that experiment… several times in fact, and fiddle with the parameters, to see, if and iff so what circumstances may influence the outcome."
- koube 8y ago
  Apologies for the brain fart, it's not the rebound effect, it's the backfire effect[0]. I can't edit my post anymore. [0] https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Backfire_effect https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Backfire_effect
autoexec 8y ago
You can never stop bad ideas from spreading, but you can decide if you'll ever hear about them or have the opportunity to fight them. If the most repeated idea wins but bad ideas are forced to spread in hidden places without refute then bad ideas are the only ones getting any voice and they win by default.
- jackvalentine 8y ago
  > but bad ideas are forced to spread in hidden places without refute then bad ideas are the only ones getting any voice and they win by default. They win by default in those dark places. Important distinction.
  - autoexec 8y ago
    The people in those dark places the ones you have to worry about. Most people don't hold dangerously wrong ideologies like neo-nazis do. What amount of rhetoric or marches or speeches would convince you to be a nazi? If you are like most people no amount ever would. The most vulnerable out there are the ones who find themselves isolated. Those who end up in the dark places or are simply raised in them from childhood. They can be reached, but not if they never hear a dissenting voice or have an opportunity to have the views they were taught challenged.
    - jackvalentine 8y ago
      Nazis in dark spaces have always existed - their modern grasp of distribution on internet platforms is what has changed. For years stormfront was a well known butt of jokes about racists, but it existed. What has changed is nazis have started using the new distributive platforms (youtube, facebook, twitter etc) to spread their word outside of the dark space. All we need to do, is deny them that distribution. Motivated racists will still find their stormfront but they'll stop achieving the bycatch of people who didn't have the skills/motivation to seek out other racists on the internet. Without distribution their views are repugnant but largely ineffective.
      - 8y ago
toasterlovin 8y ago
FWIW, I think the real question is whether or not people’s inclinations can really be changed by exposure to information. To me is seems more likely that people seek out the information which confirms their world view. And if that’s true, then I think the imperative to shut down hate speech is greatly undermined.
- autoexec 8y ago
  People do seek out the information which confirms their world view, but people also can really be changed by exposure to information. Read accounts of racists who have reformed. It's always the same story. Their beliefs were slowly chipped away by exposure to information and (most importantly) a diverse group of people. They spend time with one person who doesn't conform to their prejudices and then another and eventually it clicks for them.
  - toasterlovin 8y ago
    Right, but what about the people who don't reform? Are they somehow not exposed to all the same stuff as somebody who does reform?
    - autoexec 8y ago
      Well, yeah. A lot of racists never get to know the people they claim to hate as actual people or even interact with them beyond the most superficial encounters (passing one on the street, having one hand them change change at the store, etc). They even tend to stick to media which leaves them comfortable in their world view. Getting them out of their comfort zone is crucial for change (likely true for everyone really). Not everyone will change either. There are some remarkably stubborn people, but the only chance any of them have involves them being confronted with information outside of the narrow echo chamber they live in.

komali2 8y ago

I would like to know this as well. Case in point, when I was a kindergarten teacher, kids wouldn't have a concept of race. I'd have white girls asking me if I could put their hair in braids like "the tan girls." But by 4th grade I'd be teaching about slavery, racism, etc, and the kids would be then learning about a concept that was utterly nonsensical to the non-racism-indoctrinated kids. So I'm wondering what would happen if I never taught about racism at all.

deleted 8y ago
[deleted]
holtalanm 8y ago
Unfortunately, a lot of racism is picked up at home.
NTDF9 8y ago
Man, I grew up in a third world country where race was a complete non-issue (unless your color made you stick out like a sore thumb, in which case, you'd be a celebrity, not get picked on). Coming to the US is what made me encounter racism. American society really is broken from within when third world countries can get around this but America can't.
- cdubzzz 8y ago
  I think this is a bit of apples and oranges. There are vast differences between pretty much any two cultures. I spent three years living and working in a third world county where I “stuck out like a sore thumb”. Most people I met assumed I was rich, despite living and working on the equivalent of a local secondary school teacher’s salary. And this was still a hell of a lot more than most people in the country were making, but my local counterparts did not have to constantly deny requests for money and things from strangers. Perhaps a more apt comparison to racism in the US would be sexism in the country I worked in. Men would cat call women constantly to ask for (or demand) sex and marriage. This was just an accepted and normal part of the culture there. It was crazy.
  - NTDF9 8y ago
    Well, the question is specifically discrimination on the basis of race, so apples to apples there. Maybe other countries score lower in sexism. (btw America does too, we all know that :) ) However, it still doesn't take away the fact that the extent of racism in America is far too high for a first world country. As much as it pains me to say this, at a societal level, I don't see any difference between my third world country of birth and America. The only difference between my home country and USA is interstate highways.
    - komali2 8y ago
      Do the people downvoting this disagree that America has too much of a racism problem for a first world country, or what's going on here?
      - NTDF9 8y ago
        > Do the people downvoting this disagree that America has too much of a racism problem for a first world country, or what's going on here? Unfortunately, that has been my experience. A lot of seemingly well-intentioned Americans refuse to accept their follies. They are completely unaware/unwilling to admit that the rest of the world is watching what's happening in America. This is possibly due to the ingrained, "American exceptionalism" belief but I am willing to be proven wrong. As a comparison, see this Brazilian admitting flaws in Brazil: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17735229 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17735229 But Americans admitting racism? Nope.
forapurpose 8y ago
> by 4th grade I'd be teaching about slavery, racism, etc, and the kids would be then learning about a concept that was utterly nonsensical to the non-racism-indoctrinated kids. So I'm wondering what would happen if I never taught about racism at all. Assuming these kids are in the U.S., then you omitting the topic from their 4th grade class would only omit a tiny portion of what they encounter in their lives. If my 4th grade teacher omitted something from history class, I don't think it's possible that I've never learned about it (assuming it has some significance).

koube 8y ago

This called the Rebound effect[0]. There is a Debunking Handbook[1] for dealing with this phenomenon. There is also the idea that a lie travels around the globe while the truth is putting on its shoes, which spurred /r/AskHistorians to ban holocaust denial[2]. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rebound_effect https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rebound_effect [1] https://www.skepticalscience.com/docs/Debunking_Handbook.pdf https://www.skepticalscience.com/docs/Debunking_Handbook.pdf [2] https://slate.com/technology/2018/07/the-askhistorians-subreddit-banned-holocaust-deniers-and-facebook-should-too.html https://slate.com/technology/2018/07/the-askhistorians-subre...

deleted 8y ago
[deleted]
moomin 8y ago
Now figure out how debunking works when the guy putting out hate speech can block at will and/or controls the website.
datenwolf 8y ago
Without judging on the validity of some of the statements made/cited in the "Debunking Handbook", I can't help but wonder, how many of the psychological experimented mentioned in it are part of the reproducibility crisis. Reading that handbook, whenever a social experiment and its outcome was mentioned, my initial thought was: "Hmm, interesting. I'd like to reproduce that experiment… several times in fact, and fiddle with the parameters, to see, if and iff so what circumstances may influence the outcome."
koube 8y ago
Apologies for the brain fart, it's not the rebound effect, it's the backfire effect[0]. I can't edit my post anymore. [0] https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Backfire_effect https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Backfire_effect

autoexec 8y ago

You can never stop bad ideas from spreading, but you can decide if you'll ever hear about them or have the opportunity to fight them. If the most repeated idea wins but bad ideas are forced to spread in hidden places without refute then bad ideas are the only ones getting any voice and they win by default.

jackvalentine 8y ago
> but bad ideas are forced to spread in hidden places without refute then bad ideas are the only ones getting any voice and they win by default. They win by default in those dark places. Important distinction.
- autoexec 8y ago
  The people in those dark places the ones you have to worry about. Most people don't hold dangerously wrong ideologies like neo-nazis do. What amount of rhetoric or marches or speeches would convince you to be a nazi? If you are like most people no amount ever would. The most vulnerable out there are the ones who find themselves isolated. Those who end up in the dark places or are simply raised in them from childhood. They can be reached, but not if they never hear a dissenting voice or have an opportunity to have the views they were taught challenged.
  - jackvalentine 8y ago
    Nazis in dark spaces have always existed - their modern grasp of distribution on internet platforms is what has changed. For years stormfront was a well known butt of jokes about racists, but it existed. What has changed is nazis have started using the new distributive platforms (youtube, facebook, twitter etc) to spread their word outside of the dark space. All we need to do, is deny them that distribution. Motivated racists will still find their stormfront but they'll stop achieving the bycatch of people who didn't have the skills/motivation to seek out other racists on the internet. Without distribution their views are repugnant but largely ineffective.
    - 8y ago

toasterlovin 8y ago

FWIW, I think the real question is whether or not people’s inclinations can really be changed by exposure to information. To me is seems more likely that people seek out the information which confirms their world view. And if that’s true, then I think the imperative to shut down hate speech is greatly undermined.

autoexec 8y ago
People do seek out the information which confirms their world view, but people also can really be changed by exposure to information. Read accounts of racists who have reformed. It's always the same story. Their beliefs were slowly chipped away by exposure to information and (most importantly) a diverse group of people. They spend time with one person who doesn't conform to their prejudices and then another and eventually it clicks for them.
- toasterlovin 8y ago
  Right, but what about the people who don't reform? Are they somehow not exposed to all the same stuff as somebody who does reform?
  - autoexec 8y ago
    Well, yeah. A lot of racists never get to know the people they claim to hate as actual people or even interact with them beyond the most superficial encounters (passing one on the street, having one hand them change change at the store, etc). They even tend to stick to media which leaves them comfortable in their world view. Getting them out of their comfort zone is crucial for change (likely true for everyone really). Not everyone will change either. There are some remarkably stubborn people, but the only chance any of them have involves them being confronted with information outside of the narrow echo chamber they live in.