• 9 Post
  • 68 Comment
Joined 2Y ago
cake
Cake day: Oct 07, 2019

help-circle
rss

I believe that conspirators push outlandish conspiracies to distract from real ones, and make level-headed people look down on conspiracy theorizing. For example, Alex Jones could be CIA.


So free speech should be limited if people use it irresponsibly? Would you say the same of other types of freedom? If people vote for something harmful is it justified to remove their voting rights?


I would support a democracy of idiots over a benevolent king. I support free speech of idiots over benevolent censors.


How does censoring misinformation contribute to people being less able to think for themselves in your opinion?

I think the best situation is when people are exposed to a wide range of ideas and are able to think through them and decide what they makes sense. Maybe I shouldn’t have so much faith in people, but I don’t know what else there is to have faith in—those who happen to have power over information? Youtube’s algorithm?

Moreover, people just being exposed to antivax ideas doesn’t make them into antivaxers, it’s when they get sucked into echo chambers and aren’t exposed to real attempts to convince them of the opposite. I know multiple people who were vaccine skeptical and very quickly were convinced to get the vaccine as soon as someone actually tried to convince them by appealing to their ability for reason. The people who won’t hear reason are the people who have made an identity out of being antivax. And censoring them will only reinforce that identity.

None of it holds up to scrutiny and it’s just a way of enabling people’s worst impulses instead of actually fostering critical thinking.

That is why I think it is possible for people to come to their senses when exposed to a variety of ideas and reason. The real problem in my estimation is that most people don’t have a conscious method for discerning truth. People are taught lots of information, but not told why they should believe that information other than that a teacher said it. Then, when they see someone who looks and talks like an authority, they assume what they say must be true because that’s the only method they’ve ever had for finding truth. If only they would hold out on forming an opinion until they actually understood an issue. But, I do think people tend to come to their senses when exposed to enough sides of something.

deletion might still be better than not doing anything.

It might be a good thing in the small immediate sense, but the fact that information is so easily censored, with such strong political will, I think is a bad thing for humanity.


shouting “Fire!” in a crowded theater (how creative of me) shouldn’t be allowed

I would say that if someone can be proven to have said fire while knowing full well that there wasn’t a fire, they could be prosecuted. But if they genuinely believed there was a fire, they should not. Also, it would be incredibly dangerous if you could somehow prevent anyone in a crowded building from shouting “fire” unless a fire was officially known to be occurring.

The slippery slope argument

The slippery slope fallacy fallacy. AKA the accusation of slippery slope to discredit an argument. It’s only a fallacy if you’re trying to form a syllogism. The fact is that some trends do get worse.

Would you say that most of Europe has become a reincarnation of Nazi Germany or is on its way towards it, just because denying the Holocaust and the expression of some other ideas is illegal?

Not at all. Just because some speech is banned doesn’t mean crazy amounts of speech will necessarily be banned. But sometimes you can see a trend toward something and be worried about it. Or worried about what it implies in a broader context.

Overall, I think the danger is that if speech can be banned, you better trust the people banning it. And I don’t know of anyone I trust with that power over society. As an example, Youtube recently banned Russian opposition leader Navalny. Unfortunately, Youtube can and does censor content as it pleases, and there’s not much point being mad about it. The only solution is to support alternatives.


I know I’m in the minority, but I think this is a bad thing. Maybe it will have a benefit of preventing some people from finding misinformation, but overall it’s a dangerous trend that makes people at large less able to think for theirselves, as well as more ok with censorship.


I think the biggest issue is this makes the public sale of common items using crypto something that can never happen. Even if the coin is regulation resistant, real-world transactions are not.


I’ve read the manifesto and parts of Capital 1. Capital is interesting but the length and density is daunting. Do you have any recommendations for other texts to go to first, that are easier to get through?


Assuming right wing communities are taken down, I’m curious whether other instances with those communities would be blacklisted on lemmy.ml.


OP is disregarding Bernie as a whole because of his political pragmatism. I think that’s really easy if you aren’t forced to make any real political decisions yourself. If you disagree with a vote that’s one thing, but how are you going to dismiss him for speaking well of the president when he has to actually work with Biden in order to get anything actually done. The left or the party isn’t powerful enough to just be 100% oppositional to establishment dems. Bernie’s job isn’t to be a mouthpiece for your outrage.


Not presidential candidates. But it’s weird to criticize people who I’m sure have done way now than you will ever do to better the world.


How about you get elected to senate as a socialist independent and then run two giant presidential campaigns and then launch your criticism.


I mean OP is literally suggesting leaving out books for people to find them. It’s pretty identical to christian tactics.


Someone was talking a little while ago about starting a fedivangelism community. I think that’s a good idea.


Good point. Then what do you think the community is for?


On what basis do you say this?



2

I guess I was including bitcoin as decentralized. I’m just wondering if there’s a way to accomplish what bitcoin and other blockchain cryptos are doing without the insane volatility.



Is there any way to have a crypto that is resistant to speculation, and doesn’t have insane inflation/deflation on the daily?


This is an efficacy study, not safety. It doesn’t even address vaccine skepticism.



Creating this community for a place to discuss Nonviolence, Gandhian, Kingian, or otherwise. This is a good article to start…




Vacuum levitation has been invented, paving the way for solar-powered aircraft

Long thought impossible, O-Boot has proved that vacuum levitation is possible using complex carbon structures. This allows for something like a dirigible based not on lighter-than-air gas, but rather via creating a true vacuum. They plan to build an airship for eco-friendly transportation, and are c…



Moderates