5 ms·
> What is so hard about the concept of allowing people to be wrong about things? Because democratic society requires us to agree on basic facts in order to fun
by jlebar 4y ago
> What is so hard about the concept of allowing people to be wrong about things?
Because democratic society requires us to agree on basic facts in order to function.
"People are wrong about" things like:
- who got more votes in the last US presidential election
- whether future elections in the US will be fair
- whether global warming is real
- whether Democratic politicians are literal lizard people who molest children
We have seen that when we can't agree on these basic facts, people take actions like
- attempting to overthrow the seat of government
- attempted assassination of political figures (or their spouses)
- election of politicians who say that they will overthrow elections that don't go in favor of their party
- enacting policies that threaten to create a climate catastrophe.
The reason that Musk's tweet at Hillary repeating the conspiracy theory that Paul Pelosi's assailant was a male prostitute is a problem is because, in providing an alternative (false) explanation for the attack, it contributes to hiding the truth on this issue. The truth being that we can draw a straight line from politicians' words to this attack.
And since we vote for those politicians, if people are wrong about this, then yeah, it does matter.
- MockObject 4y ago> Because democratic society requires us to agree on basic facts in order to function. > - who got more votes in the last US presidential election The Democrats delegitimized the outcome of the 2016 election, the Republicans the 2020, and yet we still have a functioning democracy. We're even about to have a round of elections in a few days! > - whether global warming is real Seriously?
- RavingGoat 4y agoI take it you don't believe in global warming?
- MockObject 4y agoI don't believe that democracy depends on cool temperatures.
- catiopatio 4y ago> Because democratic society requires us to agree on basic facts in order to function. “Agreement” is a voluntary act. If people don’t agree on fundamental facts, we need more dialog to reach agreement if possible, and mutual tolerance if not. “Agreement” cannot be an involuntarily enforced mandate. If people don’t agree, we cannot force them to agree by silencing dissenting voices. Even if such silencing worked in the short-term, it’s corrosive to society’s ability to discern truth.
- noxer 4y agoLets assume hypothetically someone disagree with your comment. That someone is an admin on HN. Do you want that someone to challenge your comment with arguments/reasoning (with the possibility that it is very bad reasoning might even contain factually wrong "facts" ) or do you want that someone to just remove your comment? And which of these 2 options is more likely to make your and that hypothetical admin's opinion come closer? What about 2 other people reading your post. One agrees 100% the other partially disagrees. Which option from above would be best for them? Which option is more likely to move their opinion more towards something all agree on? If for any of the above situations you think deleting would be the best then ignore this reply and pretend the whole thread was deleted ;)