5 ms·

Why does it spread in the first place? Because half the country feels disenfranchised. You can't solve that problem by further disenfranchisement.

goatlover 5y ago
Nah. I was raised in a religiously conservative environment and was taught all sorts of weird beliefs that was also married to right wing politics, and the demonization of the left you could hear everyday on AM radio and Fox News. They aren't disenfranchised. They have a faulty worldview that isn't based on critical thinking or scientific evidence, and has been fueled by propaganda for decades. I used to be a big proponent of US-style free speech. Now I'm skeptical that it's such a good thing. It appears to me that some uses of certain forms of media are dangerous to a democratic society. Not just on the right, but in general.
- SuoDuanDao 5y ago
  So you were raised in a religiously conservative environment and clearly don't think much of it, but you've also internalised the idea that truth should come from authority. That does a disservice to science IMHO. 'Scientists' are not simply priests with different regalia. Fundamentally, the invite their experiments to be replicated or they're not scientists. Anything can be accepted as truth with the threat of sufficient violence.
  - goatlover 5y ago
    Knowledge comes from empirical verification and logical or mathematical arguments. Experts in relevant fields are more likely to be correct and capable of understanding the subject material than the average person who expresses skepticism. That doesn't mean infallibility, and experts often enough disagree with one another. Violence has nothing to do with it. When there is a consensus around a well established scientific set of facts or model, skepticism isn't warranted by the general public. People pushing conspiracy theories under certain circumstances are a danger to the public on large media platforms. Therefore, I support them being removed.
    - SuoDuanDao 5y ago
      Experts do disagree with one another often enough... unless they're all in the pay of a single interest group or our filter bubbles prevent us from seeing the experts on one side of the disagreement. You might not think either of those is happening, but if you trust the experts first how would you know if the former was happening? And wouldn't removing people make the latter failure scenario more likely?

goatlover 5y ago

Nah. I was raised in a religiously conservative environment and was taught all sorts of weird beliefs that was also married to right wing politics, and the demonization of the left you could hear everyday on AM radio and Fox News. They aren't disenfranchised. They have a faulty worldview that isn't based on critical thinking or scientific evidence, and has been fueled by propaganda for decades. I used to be a big proponent of US-style free speech. Now I'm skeptical that it's such a good thing. It appears to me that some uses of certain forms of media are dangerous to a democratic society. Not just on the right, but in general.

SuoDuanDao 5y ago
So you were raised in a religiously conservative environment and clearly don't think much of it, but you've also internalised the idea that truth should come from authority. That does a disservice to science IMHO. 'Scientists' are not simply priests with different regalia. Fundamentally, the invite their experiments to be replicated or they're not scientists. Anything can be accepted as truth with the threat of sufficient violence.
- goatlover 5y ago
  Knowledge comes from empirical verification and logical or mathematical arguments. Experts in relevant fields are more likely to be correct and capable of understanding the subject material than the average person who expresses skepticism. That doesn't mean infallibility, and experts often enough disagree with one another. Violence has nothing to do with it. When there is a consensus around a well established scientific set of facts or model, skepticism isn't warranted by the general public. People pushing conspiracy theories under certain circumstances are a danger to the public on large media platforms. Therefore, I support them being removed.
  - SuoDuanDao 5y ago
    Experts do disagree with one another often enough... unless they're all in the pay of a single interest group or our filter bubbles prevent us from seeing the experts on one side of the disagreement. You might not think either of those is happening, but if you trust the experts first how would you know if the former was happening? And wouldn't removing people make the latter failure scenario more likely?