3 ms·
Whoa, calm down there with arriving at a perfectly reasonable solution to challenging ideas. /s Honestly though, if you have an argument that is so concrete an
by rabuse 5y ago
Whoa, calm down there with arriving at a perfectly reasonable solution to challenging ideas. /s
Honestly though, if you have an argument that is so concrete and based on facts and verifiable statistics, there should be no need to silence dissent. Challenge them, and let the audience form their own conclusions, and question how they arrived at sed conclusion. People have been so conditioned to just believing news links and talking heads to arrive at the conclusions for them; they don't even want to think.
- adamrezich 5y agoI've been getting the vibe (which is being reinforced by the downvotes) that there's a sort idea going around that we've reached some kind of critical juncture in online discourse where mere dissent doesn't work, or somehow is not good enough, when it comes to combatting mis/disinformation, and thus the only solution is silencing anyone who says anything outside of the accepted orthodoxy of "truth." I find this general mindset more broadly harmful than any specific ideas that are touted or espoused by any content creator. when did we start implicitly believing in the societal necessity of Truth Police?
- rabuse 5y agoThis started with Twitter's cancel culture. They gamified it in the earlier years, and saw it as a challenge (mostly teenagers and trolls), and now it's used to actually silence dissenting views. It's ingrained in the population that this is the new way of handling disagreement.