4 ms·
They literally aren't defending Bircherism ,they say that it would have been more productive to argue against them in public to discredit their ideas rather tha
by ch4s3 10mo ago
They literally aren't defending Bircherism ,they say that it would have been more productive to argue against them in public to discredit their ideas rather than letting them fester off in some dark corner. They're talking about how pushing bad ideas out of public view rather than arguing against them can exacerbate negative polarization and draw more people into bad ideas.
You have completely missed the point of the article. So you didn't actually read the article and you're making a dumb claim based on a misunderstanding.
- pjc50 10mo agoWhy do I never hear the "it would be better to let pornography onto major platforms so people could debate against it in the comments" argument?
- ch4s3 10mo agoSo you still didn't read the article and you're changing the subject to cover for the fact that you made up that the article defends bircherism. Nice attempt at a deflection, but you're still reacting to something you didn't read based on basically just the headline.
- dpark 10mo agoHe didn’t say the article is correct. He said that arguing against the article without reading it is dumb.
- ch4s3 10mo agoI'm saying both that it is correct and the other poster should read it or move on.
- bryanlarsen 10mo ago> ,they say that it would have been more productive to argue against them in public to discredit their ideas rather than letting them fester off in some dark corner. That doesn't work very well either. There are countless examples like the anti-vax nonsense. I'll agree with the statement that deplatforming doesn't work very well. But it could work better than the alternatives in some cases.
- ch4s3 10mo agoAnti-vaxers were removed from every platform for more than 2 years during the pandemic, and that didn't work. I rarely see anyone actually going into a public forum to try to clearly communicate the evidence for vaccine safety in clear terms rather than just an appeal to authority. Clearly its a hard job, but I think its worthwhile.
- bryanlarsen 10mo agoIt's an impossible job. It takes many hours of work to properly debunk a post that can be written in 30 seconds. Even less if you use a bot.
- dpark 10mo ago> I rarely see anyone actually going into a public forum to try to clearly communicate the evidence for vaccine safety Then you haven’t looked. There are endless examples of qualified people explaining the actual risks and benefits of vaccines in clear and honest terms. Perhaps what you actually mean is that you don’t see this happen within the insular communities that embrace antivaccine rhetoric. You don’t see it there because such efforts are blocked. Go explain vaccines in an antivax subreddit and watch as you get downvoted into invisibility and probably banned from the sub.
- pjc50 10mo ago> Go explain vaccines in an antivax subreddit and watch as you get downvoted into invisibility and probably banned from the sub. See, deplatforming works! (like any tactic, it can be used for good or evil)
- ch4s3 10mo ago> See, deplatforming works! Again that's not what the article here that you didn't read is talking about. The article is about negative polarization and preference falsification.
- ch4s3 10mo ago