3 ms·
Their opinions are plainly wrong by any modern standard (i.e. killing "subhumans", etc.), so there's no merit in approaching them on that front. Though as you
by Sol- 8y ago
Their opinions are plainly wrong by any modern standard (i.e. killing "subhumans", etc.), so there's no merit in approaching them on that front.
Though as you say, it might be necessary to understand them to prevent such extremism from spreading. But at that point it's very well worth asking if all that 'understanding' is really more effective than just banning such platforms.
Worked for Reddit, for instance. There was a study that showed that the prevalence of hate-speech was decreased after they banned the racist subreddits. Even people engaged in those communities became less extreme after you've removed their echo chamber.
- Endy 8y agoIt "worked" for Reddit because people moved over to Voat or back to the chans. Just because the community moves off a certain platform doesn't actually change the existence of either the people or their opinions. I want to make clear that I agree with you that an opinion that terms any member of genus Homo as subhuman is wrong; and that killing is also wrong. On the other hand, I for one am curious about how these memes originated and continue to propagate; and I feel that direct engagement is the only way we'll find that out. Massive cultural impact cannot be made by simply avoiding other opinions. After all, Columbus massively underestimated the circumference of the Earth compared to Eratosthenes - but the Portuguese still funded his travels, and his trip was successful, even if by complete accident. Engaging with those who have wrong opinions can sometimes have unexpected positive impact.