4 ms·

People can think for themselves and censorship is ultimently counterproductive, right - but what should be done when people "think for themselves" and come to h

by ausbah 6y ago

People can think for themselves and censorship is ultimently counterproductive, right - but what should be done when people "think for themselves" and come to horrendously wrong conclusions? Clearly the likes of anti-vaxxers and conspiracy theorists have done some amount of the above and come to the wrong conclusions, so something is obviously wrong in their thought process that led them thinking in such a way. I'm not sure what is the best way of correcting people's broken though processes and beliefs like those are, I don't think just stating evidence at them really works. At the very least I fail to see what value is to be gained by letting such thoughts be granted a platform to continue the cycle of flawed reasoning.

piaste 6y ago
It really sounds like you haven't fully grasped the concept of freedom of thoughts if you think that something "should be done" about wrongthinkers. People acquiring and holding wrong ideas is entirely the point. Because otherwise you need to have an entity deciding that an idea is wrong and should be suppressed. Do you trust Google with that power? Do you trust Facebook with it? The only trustworthy judge of an idea is reality and its consequences. Some people think that 5G causes coronavirus? Let them ban 5G from their towns, from their countries. Other countries will not, and after a few years they will not be any sicker and be a little ahead in technological infrastructure. The 5G-phobics will eventually give up, or worst case, they will die of old age and their children will learn.
- pharke 6y ago
  Exactly, and it works when those ideas succeed as well (although they are then post facto correct). We forget that there were times when things like inter-racial marriage, atheism, women's suffrage, union organizing, abortion and being homosexual were decidedly "wrongthink" and were actively suppressed by existing laws and power structures. The only reason we have what we consider a modern society with broad human rights and freedoms is because there were people that went against the commonly accepted morals and institutions of their day. I'm not defending people who attempt to force their beliefs on or harm others here but people should be free to fail (often) and succeed (occasionally) in their own spectacular and stupid ways. Society never progresses without people who challenge its assumptions.
- ausbah 6y ago
  No, I completely under the point of freedom of thought and letting people think whatever they like. My sticking point is that I believe letting some ideas being carried to fruition in reality to measure their worthiness via their consequences is an extremely flawed metric. I see some consequences as holding nothing but irreversible harm and thus outweighing any benefits free expression of those ideas may bring. I mean take anti-vaxxers for example, if enough people become anti-vaxxers and don't have their children vaccinated - herd immunity is compromised, children get sick, some of them die. I do not see how easily preventable deaths can ever be held as worth the unfettered spread of the ideas that directly contributed to them. The other gripe with consequences as the sole value metric of an idea is just because an idea doesn't work when carried out, doesn't mean the idea is discarded everyone at large. Some awful ideas keep resurfacing again and again despite all evidence to their contrary. You are right though that suppressing such opinions would have to be done by large, controlling institutions like governments or corporations. However as much as I distrust such institutions like anyone else, I think the compelling interest of society is enough to grant them the ability to censor - at least in specific instances of universally condemnable opinions like anti-vaccinations, eugenics, etc. Take from this what you will.
  - piaste 6y ago
    Actions are not the same as speech. You can mandate vaccinations without restricting people's right to protest against vaccines. Just like you can prohibit marijuana without restricting people's ability to protest for legalization.

by ausbah 6y ago

piaste 6y ago

It really sounds like you haven't fully grasped the concept of freedom of thoughts if you think that something "should be done" about wrongthinkers. People acquiring and holding wrong ideas is entirely the point. Because otherwise you need to have an entity deciding that an idea is wrong and should be suppressed. Do you trust Google with that power? Do you trust Facebook with it? The only trustworthy judge of an idea is reality and its consequences. Some people think that 5G causes coronavirus? Let them ban 5G from their towns, from their countries. Other countries will not, and after a few years they will not be any sicker and be a little ahead in technological infrastructure. The 5G-phobics will eventually give up, or worst case, they will die of old age and their children will learn.

pharke 6y ago
Exactly, and it works when those ideas succeed as well (although they are then post facto correct). We forget that there were times when things like inter-racial marriage, atheism, women's suffrage, union organizing, abortion and being homosexual were decidedly "wrongthink" and were actively suppressed by existing laws and power structures. The only reason we have what we consider a modern society with broad human rights and freedoms is because there were people that went against the commonly accepted morals and institutions of their day. I'm not defending people who attempt to force their beliefs on or harm others here but people should be free to fail (often) and succeed (occasionally) in their own spectacular and stupid ways. Society never progresses without people who challenge its assumptions.
ausbah 6y ago
No, I completely under the point of freedom of thought and letting people think whatever they like. My sticking point is that I believe letting some ideas being carried to fruition in reality to measure their worthiness via their consequences is an extremely flawed metric. I see some consequences as holding nothing but irreversible harm and thus outweighing any benefits free expression of those ideas may bring. I mean take anti-vaxxers for example, if enough people become anti-vaxxers and don't have their children vaccinated - herd immunity is compromised, children get sick, some of them die. I do not see how easily preventable deaths can ever be held as worth the unfettered spread of the ideas that directly contributed to them. The other gripe with consequences as the sole value metric of an idea is just because an idea doesn't work when carried out, doesn't mean the idea is discarded everyone at large. Some awful ideas keep resurfacing again and again despite all evidence to their contrary. You are right though that suppressing such opinions would have to be done by large, controlling institutions like governments or corporations. However as much as I distrust such institutions like anyone else, I think the compelling interest of society is enough to grant them the ability to censor - at least in specific instances of universally condemnable opinions like anti-vaccinations, eugenics, etc. Take from this what you will.
- piaste 6y ago
  Actions are not the same as speech. You can mandate vaccinations without restricting people's right to protest against vaccines. Just like you can prohibit marijuana without restricting people's ability to protest for legalization.