6 ms·

So then you need to come to terms with people rejecting what you want them to believe. Some people won't believe you no matter what. Does that mean you get to r

So then you need to come to terms with people rejecting what you want them to believe. Some people won't believe you no matter what. Does that mean you get to reach for another tool, like force, or censorship? No, it means you need to accept that you don't control people.

croes 2y ago
[flagged]
- throwaway115 2y ago
  >We take away your freedom and put you in jail. The ACLU has defended literal neo-Nazis and white supremacists right to rally and share their ideas on several occasions. Sounds like you would disagree with them, and that people should be imprisoned for having disgusting and hateful ideas. Fortunately, you're wrong. Don't conflate words with actions like hurting someone. There are very narrow restrictions on speech, mostly around calls or threats of imminent violence. But those are extremely rare cases, and they're not what you are broadly describing.
  - croes 2y ago
    >that people should be imprisoned for having disgusting and hateful ideas So what about Charles Manson? >Fortunately, you're wrong Based on what? Have you counted the people who died or got hurt because someone took action because of those disgusting and hateful ideas? Or is this the kind of reasoning where something must be wrong because you don't like it. You already acknowledged there are limits in free speech so now we are just bargaining about the limits. There is no unlimited free speech. Interestingly it seems like speech is rather limited if it's about copyright than human lives.
justonenote 2y ago
> it means you need to accept that you don't control people. This is absolutely the correct take, but also an idea that is unconscionable to the majority of people in government and other institutions involved in setting policies today.
drekk 2y ago
It's not about belief or control. If you're harming the social organism by spreading verifiable falsehoods (vaccines cause autism) then you should be rooted out and treated like the cancer you're choosing to be. I can't yell fire in a theater. I'm somehow alive despite that censorship. People need to grow up.
- throwaway115 2y ago
  Where can I read about the constitutional rights of "the social organism"?
- justonenote 2y ago
  Do we really have to go over the history of ideas that were once considered falsehoods but are now accepted as truth? Your argument rests on the presumption that we have some kind of Oracle that can divine true information from false. > rooted out and treated like the cancer you're choosing to be It's cool that you think humans have changed in nature significantly from the time of the Inquisitions, but when you speak like this about people it's pretty clear we haven't.
throw0101c 2y ago
> No, it means you need to accept that you don't control people. Not wrong, but when others' mis- and ill-formed view of the world starts effecting others then some kind of action needs to happen: * https://www.cdc.gov/measles/data-research/index.html https://www.cdc.gov/measles/data-research/index.html * https://www.cdc.gov/measles/about/history.html https://www.cdc.gov/measles/about/history.html * https://www.cbc.ca/news/health/canada-measles-outbreak-vaccination-1.7144915 https://www.cbc.ca/news/health/canada-measles-outbreak-vacci... * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vaccines_and_autism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vaccines_and_autism * https://www.google.com/search?q=vaccine+autism https://www.google.com/search?q=vaccine+autism
yosito 2y ago
There are tools you can use when you want people to see your perspective, things like empathy and persuasion. You don't just have to fatalistically accept that people think differently than you, you can absolutely attempt to change their mind, in ethical ways.

croes 2y ago

[flagged]

throwaway115 2y ago
>We take away your freedom and put you in jail. The ACLU has defended literal neo-Nazis and white supremacists right to rally and share their ideas on several occasions. Sounds like you would disagree with them, and that people should be imprisoned for having disgusting and hateful ideas. Fortunately, you're wrong. Don't conflate words with actions like hurting someone. There are very narrow restrictions on speech, mostly around calls or threats of imminent violence. But those are extremely rare cases, and they're not what you are broadly describing.
- croes 2y ago
  >that people should be imprisoned for having disgusting and hateful ideas So what about Charles Manson? >Fortunately, you're wrong Based on what? Have you counted the people who died or got hurt because someone took action because of those disgusting and hateful ideas? Or is this the kind of reasoning where something must be wrong because you don't like it. You already acknowledged there are limits in free speech so now we are just bargaining about the limits. There is no unlimited free speech. Interestingly it seems like speech is rather limited if it's about copyright than human lives.

justonenote 2y ago

> it means you need to accept that you don't control people. This is absolutely the correct take, but also an idea that is unconscionable to the majority of people in government and other institutions involved in setting policies today.

drekk 2y ago

It's not about belief or control. If you're harming the social organism by spreading verifiable falsehoods (vaccines cause autism) then you should be rooted out and treated like the cancer you're choosing to be. I can't yell fire in a theater. I'm somehow alive despite that censorship. People need to grow up.

throwaway115 2y ago
Where can I read about the constitutional rights of "the social organism"?
justonenote 2y ago
Do we really have to go over the history of ideas that were once considered falsehoods but are now accepted as truth? Your argument rests on the presumption that we have some kind of Oracle that can divine true information from false. > rooted out and treated like the cancer you're choosing to be It's cool that you think humans have changed in nature significantly from the time of the Inquisitions, but when you speak like this about people it's pretty clear we haven't.

throw0101c 2y ago

> No, it means you need to accept that you don't control people. Not wrong, but when others' mis- and ill-formed view of the world starts effecting others then some kind of action needs to happen: * https://www.cdc.gov/measles/data-research/index.html https://www.cdc.gov/measles/data-research/index.html * https://www.cdc.gov/measles/about/history.html https://www.cdc.gov/measles/about/history.html * https://www.cbc.ca/news/health/canada-measles-outbreak-vaccination-1.7144915 https://www.cbc.ca/news/health/canada-measles-outbreak-vacci... * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vaccines_and_autism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vaccines_and_autism * https://www.google.com/search?q=vaccine+autism https://www.google.com/search?q=vaccine+autism

yosito 2y ago

There are tools you can use when you want people to see your perspective, things like empathy and persuasion. You don't just have to fatalistically accept that people think differently than you, you can absolutely attempt to change their mind, in ethical ways.