4 ms·

I haven't (and won't) downvote you for expressing an opinion I disagree with - but I do disagree with you. Whether or not there is value in QAnon is beyond me.

I haven't (and won't) downvote you for expressing an opinion I disagree with - but I do disagree with you. Whether or not there is value in QAnon is beyond me. There is value in people being able to say what they want, even if it is baseless, or disturbed, or hateful. One example that comes to my mind is the Rotterham child rape scandal[1], which, were it not printed in the most reputable newspapers world wide, would sound like something out of the QAnon fantasy. Even worse than this scandal itself, which is saying something given that this scandal describes an organization of men raping children for decades with the tacit knowledge of local police and city government, is the fact that there are many similar occurrences in the UK. That is, this is not a one off horrific event, but part of a terrible and disturbing pattern. Why I bring this up as an example, is, that it seems to me part of the problem the UK has in getting the organized rape of children under control, is an unwillingness to speak about it and be open about it. The UK is so determined to control speech and avoid offending people that they kept secret the organized rape of hundreds if not thousands of children across their country for decades. I would much rather err on the side of allowing people to indulge in dark, even if absurd, fantasies (e.g. QAnon) than forbid or punish people for going public with imperfectly firm accusations (as happened in Rotterham - victims and their families reported the ongoing sexual abuse and rape to the authorities through the many years it was ongoing and the authorities ignored them for fear of being offensive[2]). The organized sexual abuse of children clearly does happen. Sometimes the government is intimately involved. For example the case with Jeffrey Epstein. It's worth it to let people talk about it and make accusations. Sometimes disturbed people will go too far and make baseless claims. That's not ideal, but preventing people from making anything but perfect accusations leads to a culture where horrible crimes are covered up for fear of not having enough evidence. I think it is a better balance to let mean people say mean things and expose whatever evidence there may be of things as soon as possible. 1 - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rotherham_child_sexual_exploitation_scandal https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rotherham_child_sexual_exploit... 2 - https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/police-ignored-child-sex-abuse-21305529 https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/police-ignored-child-s...

newacct583 6y ago
The horrors in Rotterham weren't exposed by conspiracy nuts, though. It was exposed by real investigative journalism and law enforcement work. That's the whole point here: it's not that bad things don't happen, it's that this fact is not sufficient evidence for other bad things happening. The suppression here is of baseless conspiracy theories about child abuse because they're baseless, not because they're about child abuse.
- ALittleLight 6y ago
  The victims in Rotterham went to the police and were turned away because the police considered what they were reporting to be potentially offensive. You're right that it wasn't exposed by conspiracy nuts, but that's because it was a real thing and the people with flimsy evidence were ignored. That it wasn't exposed by people with flimsy evidence is my point. In a different context and with different laws they would have the circulated the story and it would have gained attention, credibility, and scrutiny. There is a reason why "Grooming gangs" are common in the UK compared to the US. I think the suppression of speech is one of those reasons. It's basically gaslighting to praise the work of the government by saying "It was exposed by real investigative journalism and law enforcement work". Absolutely not. Multiple victims reported it to the government and were turned away. The government and journalists ignored it for decades. That's hardly "real investigative work". The government and journalists managed to detect the organized rape of hundreds of children after only 30 years! The other reason to bring up Rotterham is to point out that conspiracies like this aren't purely fantasy. Sometimes the government is involved in the organized rape of children. Prohibiting people from talking about the possibility because you feel their evidence is insufficient is not a trade off I think should be made.
  - newacct583 6y ago
    > to point out that conspiracies like this aren't purely fantasy You're doing it again! You can't justify belief in a baseless conspiracy theory by saying that some other vaguely related thing was true! You can't. The logic doesn't work. And it's expressly harmful, because now that "justified" belief can be weaponized to hurt your political enemies. Stop it.

newacct583 6y ago

The horrors in Rotterham weren't exposed by conspiracy nuts, though. It was exposed by real investigative journalism and law enforcement work. That's the whole point here: it's not that bad things don't happen, it's that this fact is not sufficient evidence for other bad things happening. The suppression here is of baseless conspiracy theories about child abuse because they're baseless, not because they're about child abuse.

ALittleLight 6y ago
The victims in Rotterham went to the police and were turned away because the police considered what they were reporting to be potentially offensive. You're right that it wasn't exposed by conspiracy nuts, but that's because it was a real thing and the people with flimsy evidence were ignored. That it wasn't exposed by people with flimsy evidence is my point. In a different context and with different laws they would have the circulated the story and it would have gained attention, credibility, and scrutiny. There is a reason why "Grooming gangs" are common in the UK compared to the US. I think the suppression of speech is one of those reasons. It's basically gaslighting to praise the work of the government by saying "It was exposed by real investigative journalism and law enforcement work". Absolutely not. Multiple victims reported it to the government and were turned away. The government and journalists ignored it for decades. That's hardly "real investigative work". The government and journalists managed to detect the organized rape of hundreds of children after only 30 years! The other reason to bring up Rotterham is to point out that conspiracies like this aren't purely fantasy. Sometimes the government is involved in the organized rape of children. Prohibiting people from talking about the possibility because you feel their evidence is insufficient is not a trade off I think should be made.
- newacct583 6y ago
  > to point out that conspiracies like this aren't purely fantasy You're doing it again! You can't justify belief in a baseless conspiracy theory by saying that some other vaguely related thing was true! You can't. The logic doesn't work. And it's expressly harmful, because now that "justified" belief can be weaponized to hurt your political enemies. Stop it.