"Marketplace of Ideas"?

[Checkmite]

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 ?

Well for what it's worth I actually do think anti-vaxx is one of those ideologies that needs to be rejected. Innocent and helpless people are suffering and dying because of it.

White supremacy/nationalism/separatism/"replacement" theory is another that needs to be canned. It kills innocents.

Politico-jihadist Muslim extremism. No more "well I'm not excusing them, but I can understand why they are upset..." waffling. Just like with the white nationalists, it's close enough to an excuse to encourage them.

There's room for doubt about the efficacy of modern mental health and oncological treatment; but those who openly advocate for people to stop taking their psychiatric or cancer drugs and withdraw from medical care entirely, also need to be denied an equal seat at the table.

 

[Darat]

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 ?

Advocating for genocide or perhaps better put mass murdering of your fellow citizens?

 

[Stout]

Well for what it's worth I actually do think anti-vaxx is one of those ideologies that needs to be rejected. Innocent and helpless people are suffering and dying because of it.

White supremacy/nationalism/separatism/"replacement" theory is another that needs to be canned. It kills innocents.

Politico-jihadist Muslim extremism. No more "well I'm not excusing them, but I can understand why they are upset..." waffling. Just like with the white nationalists, it's close enough to an excuse to encourage them.

There's room for doubt about the efficacy of modern mental health and oncological treatment; but those who openly advocate for people to stop taking their psychiatric or cancer drugs and withdraw from medical care entirely, also need to be denied an equal seat at the table.

That seems like a pretty good list, hard to argue against any of that. I wonder if the social media platforms are considering banning those topics. yes I know about Facebook's recent announcement and their longstanding rejection of terrorist content and if not, why not.

 

[Stout]

Advocating for genocide or perhaps better put mass murdering of your fellow citizens?

Already illegal in my part of the world.

 

[Roboramma]

I'll sum up my views with this: when reasoning like a Bayesian, never set your prior probability to either 0 or 1.

 

[BobTheCoward]

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.

Good if an idea and speech changed my mind, I'm glad. That is the very speech I want to be exposed to.

 

[mgidm86]

Suppose all the Christians in the US decided that Atheism was a bad idea and should be silenced? Many already think that, but imagine if they had the power to actually do it? Anyone ever heard of the Roman Catholic Church? Don't forget your history lessons.

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

Christianity is the most adhered to religion in the United States, with 75% of polled American adults identifying themselves as Christian in 2015.[1][2] This is down from 85% in 1990, lower than 81.6% in 2001,[3] and slightly lower

What if not just Christians, but all religions joined the fight? You'd have an overwhelming majority of religious people wanting to shut you up. Even if you are correct in your views you will still be silenced.

As best I can find, approximately 5% of Americans are non-religious (not necessarily atheists). I won't post links because this is an average of what I've found. Could be more could be less.

Remember, the power you give someone can also be used against you one day. Pretty basic stuff.

It could also happen that one of the groups you choose to silence may actually have been right all along. Isaac Newton comes to mind.

 

[mgidm86]

Facebook Bans Popular Atheist Group, Fans and Members Rally in Support

http://www.atheistrepublic.com/news/facebook-bans-popular-atheist-group-fans-members-rally-support

Members and fans of Atheist Republic have been rallying in support and finding ways to have their private group restored after Facebook arbitrarily banned it on January 8, 2015, without citing much clarity on its reasoning to its administrators or members.

Page was later restored. This time. Watch what you wish for folks.

 

[BobTheCoward]

It just seems like the argument that society should base it on their values is the complete rejection of free speech. The notion that you allow speech that complies with your values or is ineffective is just a rejection if the concept. It is a trivially easy position. Free speech is communication that works and is contrary to society's sense of value.

 

[Skeptic Tank]

The "Marketplace of Ideas" doesn't mean every idea has to be debated forever until every party is satisfied.

"Is Nazism good or bad?" is not a debate anymore. We had a war about it. The whole world was involved. It was kind of a big deal. The jury is in on "Nazis."

By the definition people are now using for "Nazi" - white people who wish to live in vast-majority white nations and not have significant amounts of immigration from non-whites, and who like being white and prefer the company of whites ---- World War II was Nazis fighting Nazis for the most part.

By that definition, the European nations which fought and defeated Germany in WW2 were also Nazi nations.

If you'd asked the average white person or white soldier from France, the UK, Russia, the United States, etc. - during the middle of the fighting, if they understood themselves to be fighting the Nazis, they'd have enthusiastically agreed.

If you then followed up with "awesome, and by that I mean fighting to ensure that no country, including yours, ever has a preference for whites over nonwhites again or seeks to restrict immigration by millions of people from Africa, Pakistan, India, China, the Muslim world at large, or seeks to retain any semblance of male control over society, or seeks to enforce social standards on people of any kind, or seeks to limit men from becoming women or homosexual marriage..." etc. etc.

They'd have stared at you wide eyed and when they composed themselves, have made it clear that "no, I just mean I'm fighting the Germans who are very warlike and attacking other countries and killing people and want to conquer the world or something"

They'd have identified with the worldview of those Germans about a billion times more than the worldview of their own modern day countrymen in many, many ways.

 

[The Great Zaganza]

If you like...

but they were much less Nazi-like than Germany. Which is the point here.

 

[Skeptic Tank]

White supremacy/nationalism/separatism/"replacement" theory is another that needs to be canned. It kills innocents.

So if white nationalists respond to you that multiracial ideology - the idea that nations should no longer have any limit on who can be part of them and are no longer connected to a particular people, and that the vast throngs of the third world and Muslim world and Africa should all have pretty much as wide open of access to western, traditionally white nations as logistics and practicality can allow for - is also an ideology which kills innocents because of the terror attacks and increase in knife crime and other things like that, AND that the stuff we're seeing now is only a small preview of the killing and fighting to come later if enough people come in and it triggers internal civil wars in these nations --- then I guess you'd sign off on ending debate, declaring the idea of multi-racialism to be discredited and beyond the pale --- you'd agree?

 

[Skeptic Tank]

Any idea which deals with how the world should be arranged or what is best for a nation or region or anything like that, is always "an ideology which kills innocents" - the idea that slavery should end was a notion which killed a ton of innocents. The idea that fascism shouldn't be allowed to spread, the idea that communism shouldn't be allowed to spread, the idea that certain groups and individuals shouldn't be allowed to control certain Middle Eastern nations or other areas around the world because it might destabilize the region or represent a spreading awful ideology, blah blah blah...

Anything where people are trying to make or prevent or guide significant events in the world will involve a lot of death, generally.

Not saying that's desirable or good - just saying it's the nature of the world.

 

[Baylor]

I disagree with all of that. I think that the "marketplace of ideas" just gives more exposure and recruitment to bad ideas and allows people tentatively embracing them to find compatriots and strengthen their grasp on these ugly beliefs. It isn't logic or truth that wins the day, but rhetoric and emotion. The same ideas that fueled the Nazis, slavery and a good chunk of the most horrific things in human history really do not need to be debated over and over again. That merely gives the impression that they're up for debate.

The problem with that argument is most people don't even know what the Nazi's believed in. Like Skeptic Tank said, people think "Nazism = white nationalism"

In reality, Nazi's never espoused a pan-European ideology, they waged war with white countries. They planned to exterminate all Slavic people had they won, while allying with Japanese and claiming the Arabians had an "Aryan strain."

 

[Baylor]

It just seems like the argument that society should base it on their values is the complete rejection of free speech. The notion that you allow speech that complies with your values or is ineffective is just a rejection if the concept. It is a trivially easy position. Free speech is communication that works and is contrary to society's sense of value.

After viewing this board I've noticed a massive difference between the way Europeans think versus the way Americans think. The Europeans seem to be a hive mind. They are so predictable in nearly every category. They love shaming tactics and they will always toe the (BBC) line. Especially when it comes to hot-button issues (race relations, immigration, Islamification of Europe).
With Americans, you never know what they think until they said it.

I'm not sure if this is because of Europe's oppressive "hate speech" laws or because they are more ethnically similar and therefore are more likely to collectively share the same thoughts.

 

[Lambchops]

By the definition people are now using for "Nazi" - white people who wish to live in vast-majority white nations and not have significant amounts of immigration from non-whites, and who like being white and prefer the company of whites ---- World War II was Nazis fighting Nazis for the most part.

By that definition, the European nations which fought and defeated Germany in WW2 were also Nazi nations.

If you'd asked the average white person or white soldier from France, the UK, Russia, the United States, etc. - during the middle of the fighting, if they understood themselves to be fighting the Nazis, they'd have enthusiastically agreed.

If you then followed up with "awesome, and by that I mean fighting to ensure that no country, including yours, ever has a preference for whites over nonwhites again or seeks to restrict immigration by millions of people from Africa, Pakistan, India, China, the Muslim world at large, or seeks to retain any semblance of male control over society, or seeks to enforce social standards on people of any kind, or seeks to limit men from becoming women or homosexual marriage..." etc. etc.

They'd have stared at you wide eyed and when they composed themselves, have made it clear that "no, I just mean I'm fighting the Germans who are very warlike and attacking other countries and killing people and want to conquer the world or something"

They'd have identified with the worldview of those Germans about a billion times more than the worldview of their own modern day countrymen in many, many ways.

Your grandchildren will be a lovely shade of dark caramel.

Don't fight it. Embrace it.

 

[Skeptic Tank]

Your grandchildren will be a lovely shade of dark caramel.

Don't fight it. Embrace it.

I know you think you're promoting something which will end hate and divisions (though admitting we all have to become one race to get along sort of concedes my worldview...) and I used to have exactly the same view. Exactly.

Used to say that we all need to mix into one race for the sake of peace, etc.

But regardless of what you think you're advocating, or why - in actuality, you are advocating for genocide.

You want to see the distinctiveness of the white race in particular erased from this world. Many, many people feel the same way.

It is evil and it is wrong.

 

[The Great Zaganza]

Mixing heritages isn't the same as extinguishing them - and it is both false and dangerous to think otherwise.

 

[Skeptic Tank]

Mixing heritages isn't the same as extinguishing them - and it is both false and dangerous to think otherwise.

Disagreed.

Otherwise, Neanderthals aren't extinct.

If there are a distinct people at one point, and you fast forward 500 years and that distinct, recognizable people is no longer present on the world stage - then they are gone.

Probably no group of people in history we now consider to be gone didn't mix into the larger species to some degree. Probably nobody has ever been completely wiped out with no genetic trace left behind. Yet, gone they are.

Edit:

And how about, just in case you're wrong, since you're hearing a percentage of white people say they don't want to mix and they want a space for only whites, how about we just play it safe and have that? Doesn't have to be a massive amount of territory but we need something.

 

[Baylor]

Mixing heritages isn't the same as extinguishing them - and it is both false and dangerous to think otherwise.

What Lambchops is advocating for is ethnic cleansing. The childish taunts just make it that much more obvious.