3 ms·
If we ban this speech then how can we argue against these ideas? The photos, evidence, eyewitness accounts demonstrate the Holocaust is undeniable. BUT we kno
by Vaslo 6y ago
If we ban this speech then how can we argue against these ideas?
The photos, evidence, eyewitness accounts demonstrate the Holocaust is undeniable. BUT we know that there are people that say the world is flat, moon landing was faked, etc.
If anything I’d like to engage these people and verbally smash them. If anything, Facebook should make posts like this unblockable, so people can’t defriend or block people with whom they don’t agree with.
It’s the wrong move for the right reason.
- realmod 6y agoBut that is not what is happening instead they feaster inside their bubbles and grow even more convinced and dangerous. It should simply not be tolerated. "You cannot reason someone out of something he or she was not reasoned into."
- fareesh 6y agoSounds like Islam, Christianity, Judaism, Hinduism and every other religion If people want to believe something in their bubble, they should be allowed to. Most, if not all of those belief systems have fringes which advocate harm. By your argument, there would be no atheists, yet you see some people who were extremely religious becoming atheists. It's factually incorrect and dishonest to push with certainty this idea that you cannot reason with people who have passionately held views. They are our neighbours, friends, family members, countrymen and fellow humans. To throw them out of our shared spaces is weak and pathetic. We are better than this. A superior solution is to make these posts opt-in, hidden by default and mostly everyone on the platform will never see them or be disturbed by them, or become accidentally brainwashed by them. Those who remain there can be engaged with by the rest of us, who have the patience and superior mental discipline to convince them otherwise.
- twright 6y ago> The photos, evidence, eyewitness accounts demonstrate the Holocaust is undeniable. Yet it is still fervently denied. They cannot be "verbally smashed" because they are so much more invested in these ideas and because of this they are beyond the reaches of rational argument (i.e. you will be the one getting smashed). There are nearly 100 claims they will throw out such that no single person can know them all, here is a helpful academic source of these claims: https://www.hdot.org/debunking-denial/ https://www.hdot.org/debunking-denial/ Removing an accessible location of discourse is the best solution for this instance.
- Vaslo 6y agoIf I annoyingly posts photos of victims and eyewitness accounts for people who may be influenced can see, I believe that is far more powerful the driving them underground. While the author or the post may be unaffected, people who may fall under their influence may be.
- ravenstine 6y agoTechnologists, including what seems to be a large portion of HN, believe that those they view as beneath them are too stupid to evaluate arguments, so they've accepted the idea of having a ministry of truth. Rather than elevate their "untermensch", their egos drive them to exercise control. If you can't educate people to separate fact from fiction, that is ultimately the fault of intellectuals. It's one thing to teach facts in school and leave out the nonsense, but deplatforming unpopular ideas is a form of control over individuals. Where does it stop? Do we create a standard where web hosts, ISPs, deplatform ideas outside the overton window? What kind of precedent is that?
- Rapzid 6y agoI think I'm at like 5000% my daily intake of irony after reading this.