4 ms·
I'm attracted to the notion of discussing the undiscussable, but how many times will they allow open discussion about "The Holocaust was a Hoax!", "The Earth is
by jkmcf 5y ago
I'm attracted to the notion of discussing the undiscussable, but how many times will they allow open discussion about "The Holocaust was a Hoax!", "The Earth is Flat!", and similar quackery?
If they are searching for truth, what shoulders will they stand on or will they start from the very beginnings? What will count as truth, and whose word will count? Will everyone need to fly into space to realize the world is round? Or, will one person landing on the moon prove it can be done and was done?
Or, do they hope enough quacks will be convinced of accepted truths to put an end to all the nonsense? Maybe they'll discuss more interesting, nuanced topics which would be interesting to me as an observer.
- collective-intl 5y agoThis is, unfortunately, the left's view of the undiscussable: ignorant quackery. But a real heterodox environment can foster discussion on real ways the current consensus is lacking. Like whether reopening schools last Fall was a good idea, as many Republican states did. (I think it was.) Or whether challenge trials for the vaccines should be allowed. (Could have saved thousands of lives.) Or discussion of how Covid originated. If you remember, this truly was undiscussable last year. We should never be so confident that we hush up alternative ideas. We make a better society by seeking out how the status quo can be wrong.