4 ms·

I agree with the spirit of your first sentence. This is exactly what we want. > you should let people with different opinions talk to each other and work out t

by Faark 7y ago

I agree with the spirit of your first sentence. This is exactly what we want. > you should let people with different opinions talk to each other and work out their disagreements verbally But this part is sadly not happening. Less than ever is there any reason to form a consensus. Social repercussions don't seem to work anymore, now that everyone can find communities believing in whatever they want to, no matter how incompatible those believes are with those of others. We have to find ways to reverse that trend, before it can only be resolved with violence. Everyone of us, including cooperation like facebook, taking responsibility seems like one of the best options we have.

deleted 7y ago
[deleted]
ALittleLight 7y ago
Consensus shouldn't be the goal. Exposure to the other side and other ideas should be. Some people will be persuaded, some won't be. Some people will find value in knowing more sides of an issue. Some people will be satisfied by sharing their ideas as they want. When I make an important decision I like to explore options and arguments for and against those options. Imagine that your kids are of the age they need to be vaccinated. You read about it online and find tons of positive things, but in real life your friends tell you that vaccines will cause autism. If you post about it online then you'll be banned because the government is trying to cover it up. You create a post talking about it, and sure enough - you are banned! That's pretty suspicious - isn't it? How can you trust that you understand an argument if you can't see the reasons supporting the other side? Conversely, suppose you hear someone say vaccines cause autism. You google it, read the arguments of the vaccine-autism connection people and decide that - no, they probably don't. You're now free to vaccinate your children with confidence.
- Faark 7y ago
  > Consensus shouldn't be the goal. Not for everything, correct. But there also are ideas that can hardly coexist and areas were consensus seems necessary. Politics is an obvious one, since at the end of the day the laws we make will govern all of us. > You google it, read the arguments of the vaccine-autism connection people and decide that - no, they probably don't. You're now free to vaccinate your children with confidence. It'd be great if the world / human nature worked that way. But then we also wouldn't have got to a point were falling vaccination rates are a problem. > [..] If you post about it online then you'll be banned [..] Simply banning everyone doesn't sound like a good way to form consensus, doesn't it? That's a bit of a straw man, isn't it? Have you ever seen someone advocating for banning someone for genuinely asking questions? Do you think the people this article is about were just asking questions? But yeah, determining who is a bad faith actor isn't an easy task. Especially in highly divisive times.

by Faark 7y ago

deleted 7y ago

[deleted]

ALittleLight 7y ago

Consensus shouldn't be the goal. Exposure to the other side and other ideas should be. Some people will be persuaded, some won't be. Some people will find value in knowing more sides of an issue. Some people will be satisfied by sharing their ideas as they want. When I make an important decision I like to explore options and arguments for and against those options. Imagine that your kids are of the age they need to be vaccinated. You read about it online and find tons of positive things, but in real life your friends tell you that vaccines will cause autism. If you post about it online then you'll be banned because the government is trying to cover it up. You create a post talking about it, and sure enough - you are banned! That's pretty suspicious - isn't it? How can you trust that you understand an argument if you can't see the reasons supporting the other side? Conversely, suppose you hear someone say vaccines cause autism. You google it, read the arguments of the vaccine-autism connection people and decide that - no, they probably don't. You're now free to vaccinate your children with confidence.

Faark 7y ago
> Consensus shouldn't be the goal. Not for everything, correct. But there also are ideas that can hardly coexist and areas were consensus seems necessary. Politics is an obvious one, since at the end of the day the laws we make will govern all of us. > You google it, read the arguments of the vaccine-autism connection people and decide that - no, they probably don't. You're now free to vaccinate your children with confidence. It'd be great if the world / human nature worked that way. But then we also wouldn't have got to a point were falling vaccination rates are a problem. > [..] If you post about it online then you'll be banned [..] Simply banning everyone doesn't sound like a good way to form consensus, doesn't it? That's a bit of a straw man, isn't it? Have you ever seen someone advocating for banning someone for genuinely asking questions? Do you think the people this article is about were just asking questions? But yeah, determining who is a bad faith actor isn't an easy task. Especially in highly divisive times.