"Marketplace of Ideas"?

[Cavemonster]

Agreed. But, conservative republicans shouldn't be passive or accommodative toward those who seek to subvert and ultimately dismantle their world, either.

This planet is home to all of us. We should ALL have an equal right to discuss what we want, state our positions, defend the freedoms we hold dear, and enjoy well-being and prosperity.

Liberals and democrats do not hold a monopoly, nor should they ever.

I believe he meant Liberal Democracy in this sense:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberal_democracy

Not as an identifier of the left side of the current US political spectrum.

 

[Belz...]

Most of us live in democracies where no single person gets to decide what the limits of free speech should be. Preventing people from openly arguing against the basic freedoms that i hold dare, and the well-being and prosperity that follows from them, is nothing less than self-preservation.

But what you find to be essential might be different from what I find to be essential. Do I get the same treatment as the Nazi or Grand Wizard?

Or should i just passively let fascists, islamists, reactionaries and far-left extremists undermine the source of my own well-being, even though they don't even bother to hide the fact that would oppress and even outright kill me?

I'm pretty sure there's a middle option somewhere in there.

 

[Stout]

Lets start with the Nazis and see how that works out. Don't want to plunge down the slippery slope too quickly!

However, given that a major measles outbreak has just happened near me, with hundreds infected, I'm open to talking about antivaxxers.

(Although, I suspect that being driven underground will have more of a multiplying effect on antivaxxers than it would on Nazis. Their recruiting patterns are different)

Might as well plunge right down that slope, it's just an idea after all.

So anitvaxxers then. Do they actually recruit. Legit question, I only know one and her reason for being an antivaxxer is so stupid I'd be embarrassed to repeat it.

then there's the religious antivaxxers, a far different breed than my neighbour and unless we're "allowed" to determine where and when these people came to their conclusions then there's no hope of correcting their errors by pointing out things like the research you read was falsified.

They'll just go underground and consider themselves persecuted should they be banned from wherever and continue to rest assured that they possess the secret knowledge that entities like big pharma are trying to keep away from them.

Better approach, IMO to take steps like requiring vaccination certificates for all children attending public schools then disallowing them to talk about their beliefs on a platform like Faceplant.

 

[Checkmite]

They are normally harmed by the bullets fired by Nazis, and not the radicalization itself.

In case anyone needed reminding that not every response to this thread will be a good-faith argument.

 

[DragonLady]

I think I made the wrong decision in trying a thought experiment. They're how I often break things down for myself but sometimes they decrease clarity when used with others and this looks like one of those cases.

I swear it wasn't meant a "gotcha" I'm really trying to find out what the roots of your position are.

I'm sorry if I've misunderstood.

I'm off for a while now, but will reread both of your posts later to try to make sure we're on the same page.

For now, I'll just address this:

This seems to be a slippery slope argument. If we let gays marry, what then, cousins, pets? If there is a strong argument in favor of something and strong arguments against other things, why would the first thing lead to the others?

I didn't intend a slippery slope argument with that comment. Rather, I firmly believe what is good for the goose, is good for the gander.

If it's good for the world to destroy the concept of white nationalism, then it's also good for the world to destroy black nationalism, and Asian nationalism, and every other type.

If it's good to allow gays to marry, then why not cousins, too? I might be able to make a pretty good argument why that should be allowed, but I think it would just be a derail here.

If we think it's fine to have a "black culture week" then we need a "white culture week" too. Or, we need to shun both as just being sides of the same coin.

 

[Checkmite]

then there's the religious antivaxxers, a far different breed than my neighbour and unless we're "allowed" to determine where and when these people came to their conclusions then there's no hope of correcting their errors by pointing out things like the research you read was falsified.

There are extremely few genuine religious antivaxxers. By genuine, I mean people who belong to a cohesive sect that explicitly prohibits vaccinations. And none of these groups prohibit vaccinations specifically, but only as part of a prohibition on medical intervention at large.

Most people today who claim religious exemption don't belong to any such sect; other members and the leadership of their very same churches or worship-groups are fine with vaccination. They are simple invoking religious exemption because such a claim is popularly considered to be unassailable, a get-out-of-having-to-justify-yourself-free card.

 

[Cavemonster]

Might as well plunge right down that slope, it's just an idea after all.

So anitvaxxers then. Do they actually recruit. Legit question, I only know one and her reason for being an antivaxxer is so stupid I'd be embarrassed to repeat it.

I mean, they aren't born that way, so they recruit in at least some sense through the spread of information. A public health expert could probably track anti-vax positions like an infectious disease with social media being a major transmission pathway.

then there's the religious antivaxxers, a far different breed than my neighbour and unless we're "allowed" to determine where and when these people came to their conclusions then there's no hope of correcting their errors by pointing out things like the research you read was falsified.

You seem to be making the use/mention error that Dragonlady was earlier. You can take actions against advocacy for a position without banning all discussions around it.

They'll just go underground and consider themselves persecuted should they be banned from wherever and continue to rest assured that they possess the secret knowledge that entities like big pharma are trying to keep away from them.

I generally agree with this (check out my parenthetical in the post you quoted) Persecution would empower antivaxxers in a way I wouldn't apply exactly in the same way to white nationalists, but that's a lengthier discussion.

Better approach, IMO to take steps like requiring vaccination certificates for all children attending public schools then disallowing them to talk about their beliefs on a platform like Faceplant.

Both have downsides. I think not letting their kids into school has a much larger impact than keeping certain posts off social media. And keeping kids out of school can have a chilling effect. Still in general I agree with you that censorship is probably not the most effective option to counter anti-vax issues.

 

[BobTheCoward]

In case anyone needed reminding that not every response to this thread will be a good-faith argument.

I'm not in favor of making life more difficult for a group of people (potentially radicalized Nazis) just because a portion of them will go on to hurt others. I'm fine with focusing on the ones that hurt and kill innocent people.

 

[Checkmite]

If we think it's fine to have a "black culture week" then we need a "white culture week" too.

No.

A "black culture week" is only necessary in places where the other 51 weeks of the year are already "white culture week" as a practical matter if not by name; and such special weeks dedicated to minority culture only exist in those kinds of places. Sudan doesn't have a "black culture week" because it doesn't need one for the same reason that the US doesn't need a "white culture week".

"Black culture weeks" are designed to address an inequality that exists as the default state when there are no "culture weeks". Much like responding to "black lives matter" with "ALL lives matter", the idea that "it's only fair" to have white-focused cultural days and events too if blacks get to have them, is an attempt to shame and silence African-Americans for objecting to the unequal status quo by pretending that the inequality they perceive is phony, and therefore any steps taken to address or compensate for that imaginary inequality only creates real inequality in which white people become the "real victims".

 

[BobTheCoward]

If it's good for the world to destroy the concept of white nationalism, then it's also good for the world to destroy black nationalism, and Asian nationalism, and every other type.

If it's good to allow gays to marry, then why not cousins, too? I might be able to make a pretty good argument why that should be allowed, but I think it would just be a derail here.

If we think it's fine to have a "black culture week" then we need a "white culture week" too. Or, we need to shun both as just being sides of the same coin.

I think most people oppose nationalism.

 

[Stout]

So if censoring antivaxxers isn't,maybe, such a good idea, could we have some more examples of ideas that should be kept out of the marketplace ?

 

[Checkmite]

So if censoring antivaxxers isn't,maybe, such a good idea, could we have some more examples of ideas that should be kept out of the marketplace ?

Censorship isn't the way to go in any case. Governments should be remaining neutral.

It is society at large - "we the people" - who need to shun, de-platform, and deny space to toxic and terroristic ideologies.

 

[Arcade22]

But what you find to be essential might be different from what I find to be essential. Do I get the same treatment as the Nazi or Grand Wizard?

It's not peoples opinions that are the problem. The problem is that they are actively agitating for them in an attempt to implement them. They hold public rallies, are out pamphleting or otherwise distributing propaganda. That's the point where it goes from just holding hostile opinions and where they start to undermine the foundations of liberal-democracy.

Coercive measures should be used proportionally against to them in an attempt to restrict the harm they can cause, as opposed to just passively tolerating them even if they start gaining public support.

 

[Pterodactyl]

One problem is who gets to decide which ideas are to be prohibited and not allowed into the 'marketplace' of ideas. Another is determining how these ideas will be prohibited. Sometimes, the solution is worse than the problem it was supposed to solve. I think this is one of those cases.

Let the nazis, white supremacists, flat earthers, truthers, and fans of the Chicago Bears express their opinions just like the rest of us.

Pack not gonna make the playoffs this year either bruh. So sorry.

 

[Stout]

Censorship isn't the way to go in any case. Governments should be remaining neutral.

It is society at large - "we the people" - who need to shun, de-platform, and deny space to toxic and terroristic ideologies.

I wasn't necessarily talking about governments, more in general, like as is outlined in the OP. If platforms was to disallow certain content, then that's their prerogative, it's their private platform.

Say for instance, Twitter doesn't wan anyone to make mention of Bronys on their platform, then fair enough, Bronys can go elsewhere to spread their Broniness.

But what other ideas should we-the-people be suggested to shun ? What other ideas should be considered toxic and kept out of the marketplace ?

 

[TragicMonkey]

But what other ideas should we-the-people be suggested to shun ? What other ideas should be considered toxic and kept out of the marketplace ?

The notion that it's acceptable to wear brown shoes with gray pants. Black shoes go with gray pants. Or gray shoes, if such a thing were possible. But brown? No. No, no, no. Burn the heretics!

 

[Stout]

The notion that it's acceptable to wear brown shoes with gray pants. Black shoes go with gray pants. Or gray shoes, if such a thing were possible. But brown? No. No, no, no. Burn the heretics!

What's wrong with wearing brown shoes with grey pants ? Next you'll be telling me there's something with my knee high white socks, baby blue bermuda shorts and pink flip flops outfit.

Fashion nazis...I tell ya.

 

[uke2se]

"Marketplace of ideas" sounds good until you realize that what you're talking about is a constant community meeting, carrying on 24/7, all year around with everyone talking at once. The way to get people to listen isn't to have better ideas than other people, but to be outrageous and say things people want to hear.

I don't think humanity is ready for social media. It ruins our ability to distinguish fiction from fact. The loud mouths end up running the place and everything falls apart.

 

[AnonyMoose]

That fact that ya'll are now referring to these people as "white nationalists" instead of what they really are... (white supremecists, neo-nazi circus freaks, racist ballbags).... is proof in and of itself on just how much ground they actually have won with regards to their 'carte blanche free speech' indoctrinations among the masses on social media and elsewhere.

 

[Stout]

Social media is here to stay though, there's no turning back the clock. I personally don't use it save half a dozen Internet forums but it does have it's merits. One being that if you're planning a trip somewhere, it's way better to seek out and read the experiences of people who've actually done what you're thinking of doing rather than relying on the word of advertisers.

Granted, some people are to lazy to do their own research and if something dodgy comes across your feed it can always be challenged publicly. Well maybe, I don't actually know but if John Smith posted telling me that leaving a bowl of onions sitting beside an open window is a good way to reduce infection I'd look for a way to respond with information countering that idea.