5 ms·

So you ignore it. Then what? The only ones speaking have their ideas become the ‘truth’ simply because they’re the loudest majority. Next thing you know the ear

So you ignore it. Then what? The only ones speaking have their ideas become the ‘truth’ simply because they’re the loudest majority. Next thing you know the earth is a disc or vaccines cause Autism.

brighter2morrow 7y ago
>So you ignore it. Then what? The only ones speaking have their ideas become the ‘truth’ simply because they’re the loudest majority. Next thing you know the earth is a disc or vaccines cause Autism. Sounds like a slippery slope argument, which I've been told are invalid.
- TeMPOraL 7y ago
  Slippery slopes are a real thing, and slippery slope arguments are frequently valid. What distinguishes a valid slippery slope argument from an invalid one is the details about the slope. Is it actually slippery? Does it slope in the direction the argument asserts it does?
brigandish 7y ago
Isn't this what block and mute are for? Or simply posting a better, more persuasive argument. Not sure why a top down censor is needed. My own wish is that the tools social networks can use to change what we see would be democratised - I want to be able to choose the algorithms that define my feed, from anything goes to chronological to safe for children to only "authoritative sources" etc. Power to the people.
- bronco21016 7y ago
  Those are fine tools as well. I’m not even suggesting a top down censor. I’m simply pointing out that the parent to my post is being ridiculous in mocking the grandparent poster for wanting to call out those who are pushing falsehoods. If all of the ‘normal’ people just become silent and let the ‘crazy’ people run rampant because it’s impolite to correct them then we head down a path that I don’t want to go down. A path where society starts falling apart because common sense things like getting vaccines is no longer popular because the vocal ones have made it so and the people who know it’s a good idea have been silent.

brighter2morrow 7y ago

>So you ignore it. Then what? The only ones speaking have their ideas become the ‘truth’ simply because they’re the loudest majority. Next thing you know the earth is a disc or vaccines cause Autism. Sounds like a slippery slope argument, which I've been told are invalid.

TeMPOraL 7y ago
Slippery slopes are a real thing, and slippery slope arguments are frequently valid. What distinguishes a valid slippery slope argument from an invalid one is the details about the slope. Is it actually slippery? Does it slope in the direction the argument asserts it does?

brigandish 7y ago

Isn't this what block and mute are for? Or simply posting a better, more persuasive argument. Not sure why a top down censor is needed. My own wish is that the tools social networks can use to change what we see would be democratised - I want to be able to choose the algorithms that define my feed, from anything goes to chronological to safe for children to only "authoritative sources" etc. Power to the people.

bronco21016 7y ago
Those are fine tools as well. I’m not even suggesting a top down censor. I’m simply pointing out that the parent to my post is being ridiculous in mocking the grandparent poster for wanting to call out those who are pushing falsehoods. If all of the ‘normal’ people just become silent and let the ‘crazy’ people run rampant because it’s impolite to correct them then we head down a path that I don’t want to go down. A path where society starts falling apart because common sense things like getting vaccines is no longer popular because the vocal ones have made it so and the people who know it’s a good idea have been silent.