5 ms·

I think this is something that largely gets ignored in all of these discussions about deplatforming, free speech, etc. There is a baked in assumption that all p

I think this is something that largely gets ignored in all of these discussions about deplatforming, free speech, etc. There is a baked in assumption that all people are rational and will respond to well-reasoned arguments and evidence and will eventually arrive at a reasonable and evidence-based conclusion if you just bear with them and try harder. But my experience so far has not shown this to be the case. I’ve tried to have a calm and reasonable discourse with people who believe in things like QAnon, anti-vaccination theories, the “deep state”, GMO conspiracies, among others, and I’m a single voice among however many hundreds or thousands of others they are listening to. No amount of evidence or rational argument will sway these people because they are swimming in a sea of voices reinforcing their views. I’m not sure if deplatforming is the right solution here but I also don’t know what the alternatives are. Should we let them keep espousing and spreading patently false information that is actually causing harm to society to a large audience and hope that people just ignore it? That doesn’t seem like a good solution, either.

Fjolsvith 6y ago
To be honest, rational argument and evidence doesn't exactly sway people of the opposite belief because they, too, are swimming in a sea of like voices. Every time big tech bans or suspends a user, another supporter of Trump is born.
- thatsamonad 6y ago
  I hear what you're saying and I don't disagree that both "sides" are susceptible to group think and a mob mentality. I consider myself fairly moderate which is why I include examples of extreme views from the left (anti-vaccination theories, GMO conspiracies, 9/11 “truthers”) in my analysis, as well. I’m not a fan of misinformation no matter what the source is and do my best to try to “lead” people away from it. That being said, what do we do in this situation (which is a common one I see in these kinds of debates)?: - Group A claims X. - Person N asks Group A to provide evidence for their claim X. - Group A cannot provide said evidence, or the evidence provided is unreliable/cannot be validated. - Person N asks for additional evidence that the claim X made by Group A is true. - Group A insists they are right and refuses to provide any additional evidence for claim X. - Person N chooses to not believe Group A’s claim X due to a lack of evidence. What’s the next step? Assuming good faith on the sides of both parties, how do you reach some sort of agreement or conclusion? And what do we do when claim X made by Group A is one that leads to violence or other societal harms (such as an increase in death and suffering due to the spread of disease in the case of anti-vaccination theories)? I don’t have a good answer, here. I desperately want to have rational and productive conversations with people with whom I disagree. But how do you avoid a deadlock situation like the above?
  - brokenkebab 6y ago
    Agreement, and conclusion should be reached by applying procedures to which sides* agree: be it a coin tossing, asking oracle, or voting. Opposing side won't magically disappear when your side achieves power over media. What will likely happen instead they will get more reasonable motivation to wrestle this power from your hands with any means possible. *Btw, usually there are more then two sides: it's just stale majoritarian system which leaves people just two unsatisfactory choices in US.
    - zimpenfish 6y ago
      > to which sides* agree: But that assumes both sides are operating in good faith - it's pretty clear in the example that A are not (as are some sides in the real world.)
      - brokenkebab 6y ago
        The example tells about inability to reach conclusion in debates, but explicitly assumes good faith, you probably skipped the final part. And in real life as well, not a lot of people would be inclined to choose civil war instead of political/cultural one.
  - Fjolsvith 6y ago
    > Group A cannot provide said evidence, or the evidence provided is unreliable/cannot be validated. Recall my post that evidence cannot sway "person N".
- xnx 6y ago
  Every time we accept violent behavior, that behavior grows.
  - koheripbal 6y ago
    Violent thinking exists whether or not we "accept it". By putting all the violent thinking people on their own isolated platform, we are facilitating the escalation of their thinking into coordinating actions.
    - mycall 6y ago
      The best school to become a thief is jail. Concentrating violent thinking people together will agitate the self-radicalization that occurs. How do you avoid this?
      - xnx 6y ago
        > The best school to become a thief is jail. I think that's a US thing. Other countries seem to be genuinely more rehabilitative. Looks like 55% of the state prison population is there for violent offenses: https://www.prisonpolicy.org/reports/pie2020.html https://www.prisonpolicy.org/reports/pie2020.html Handling non-violent offenders away from the violent ones might be a good start.
        stjohnswarts 6y ago
        I completely agree with this. You will find a ton of stories about nonviolent people who had to become/join violent groups in prison just to stay alive and not be abused incessantly.
      - stjohnswarts 6y ago
        You can't you just have to let it happen until they implode and you can throw them in prison but at least you've limited their recruitment.
  - complexmango 6y ago

Fjolsvith 6y ago

To be honest, rational argument and evidence doesn't exactly sway people of the opposite belief because they, too, are swimming in a sea of like voices. Every time big tech bans or suspends a user, another supporter of Trump is born.

thatsamonad 6y ago
I hear what you're saying and I don't disagree that both "sides" are susceptible to group think and a mob mentality. I consider myself fairly moderate which is why I include examples of extreme views from the left (anti-vaccination theories, GMO conspiracies, 9/11 “truthers”) in my analysis, as well. I’m not a fan of misinformation no matter what the source is and do my best to try to “lead” people away from it. That being said, what do we do in this situation (which is a common one I see in these kinds of debates)?: - Group A claims X. - Person N asks Group A to provide evidence for their claim X. - Group A cannot provide said evidence, or the evidence provided is unreliable/cannot be validated. - Person N asks for additional evidence that the claim X made by Group A is true. - Group A insists they are right and refuses to provide any additional evidence for claim X. - Person N chooses to not believe Group A’s claim X due to a lack of evidence. What’s the next step? Assuming good faith on the sides of both parties, how do you reach some sort of agreement or conclusion? And what do we do when claim X made by Group A is one that leads to violence or other societal harms (such as an increase in death and suffering due to the spread of disease in the case of anti-vaccination theories)? I don’t have a good answer, here. I desperately want to have rational and productive conversations with people with whom I disagree. But how do you avoid a deadlock situation like the above?
- brokenkebab 6y ago
  Agreement, and conclusion should be reached by applying procedures to which sides* agree: be it a coin tossing, asking oracle, or voting. Opposing side won't magically disappear when your side achieves power over media. What will likely happen instead they will get more reasonable motivation to wrestle this power from your hands with any means possible. *Btw, usually there are more then two sides: it's just stale majoritarian system which leaves people just two unsatisfactory choices in US.
  - zimpenfish 6y ago
    > to which sides* agree: But that assumes both sides are operating in good faith - it's pretty clear in the example that A are not (as are some sides in the real world.)
    - brokenkebab 6y ago
      The example tells about inability to reach conclusion in debates, but explicitly assumes good faith, you probably skipped the final part. And in real life as well, not a lot of people would be inclined to choose civil war instead of political/cultural one.
- Fjolsvith 6y ago
  > Group A cannot provide said evidence, or the evidence provided is unreliable/cannot be validated. Recall my post that evidence cannot sway "person N".
xnx 6y ago
Every time we accept violent behavior, that behavior grows.
- koheripbal 6y ago
  Violent thinking exists whether or not we "accept it". By putting all the violent thinking people on their own isolated platform, we are facilitating the escalation of their thinking into coordinating actions.
  - mycall 6y ago
    The best school to become a thief is jail. Concentrating violent thinking people together will agitate the self-radicalization that occurs. How do you avoid this?
    - xnx 6y ago
      > The best school to become a thief is jail. I think that's a US thing. Other countries seem to be genuinely more rehabilitative. Looks like 55% of the state prison population is there for violent offenses: https://www.prisonpolicy.org/reports/pie2020.html https://www.prisonpolicy.org/reports/pie2020.html Handling non-violent offenders away from the violent ones might be a good start.
      - stjohnswarts 6y ago
        I completely agree with this. You will find a ton of stories about nonviolent people who had to become/join violent groups in prison just to stay alive and not be abused incessantly.
    - stjohnswarts 6y ago
      You can't you just have to let it happen until they implode and you can throw them in prison but at least you've limited their recruitment.
- complexmango 6y ago