Social Question

Demosthenes's avatar

Is shutting down dialogue we disagree with counterproductive?

Asked by Demosthenes (11035points) 1 week ago

For those who support these recent social media bans, how is silencing those we disagree with going to help the state of discourse in this country? Isn’t it going to simply push these people into more exclusive and more radical echo chambers? Isn’t it going to ensure that we continue to talk past each other and live in different realities? I think we are losing our ability to reason with one another. It has become all about emotion, how things make us feel. Irrationality on all sides.

Observing members: 0 Composing members: 0

12 Answers

chyna's avatar

It’s not a matter of shutting down dialogue we disagree with, it’s a matter of shutting down calls to violence, and acts of violence.

JLoon's avatar

I agree with chyna.

Investigations following the Capitol riots are revealing much more about how radical extremists have infiltrated the web at almost every level. They not only used forums to air grievances, but to plan and coordinate violent attacks. Those schemes have never been protected as “free speech”, and never should be.

hello321's avatar

I think there are plenty of good discussions to be had about private control of public goods. However, I don’t think “state of discourse in this country” is reasonable concern. Banning one of the most powerful people on the planet from Twitter (or Facebook, etc) can’t possibly harm whatever state of discourse you propose is going on. These aren’t people you’re going to be able talk to.

@Demosthenes: “Isn’t it going to ensure that we continue to talk past each other and live in different realities? I think we are losing our ability to reason with one another.”

People who believe – without a shred of evidence – that the election was stolen, Democrats run pedophile rings out of pizza parlors, immigrants are coming to rape their pets, and eating kale makes their dicks smaller are not people you’re going to ever be able to reason with. But keep in mind – these people are not being booted from social media. Just some rich powerful dude.

I don’t think we need to engage in pearl clutching about the loss of non-existent discourse.

Demosthenes's avatar

@hello321 I’m not specifically referring to the banning of Trump but the shutting down of Parler and even the existence of Parler in the first place. Of course I know that lunatics like that can’t be reasoned with, but why do they exist in the first place? Why are they so widespread and more mainstream than ever before? If social media hadn’t been banning right-wing accounts, there wouldn’t be this narrative that right-wingers are under attack and they wouldn’t have become so extreme and so mired in their persecution complex. That is why I think the “state of discourse” is important. I’m seeing a cause and effect here and a worsening of the problem.

hello321's avatar

@Demosthenes: “If social media hadn’t been banning right-wing accounts, there wouldn’t be this narrative that right-wingers are under attack and they wouldn’t have become so extreme and so mired in their persecution complex.”

This is patently false.

Their whole conspiracy theory is based on a persecution complex. The paranoia and misdirected anger of conspiracy nuts that exist and are not banned all over social media cannot be assuaged by more platforming. Christ, the most powerful and platformed person on the planet is their spokesperson and they still claim persecution.

You just couldn’t be more wrong about how persecution complexes work.

I’ve been quite active on Twitter, and it’s full of right-wing maniacs while plenty of left-wing voices have been silenced. I’m not unsympathetic to the concept of feeling silenced. But it’s just not the case when it comes to the right and conspiracy theorists. They have huge platforms.

@Demosthenes: “Why are they so widespread and more mainstream than ever before?”

The president of the US and corporate mediate mainstreamed their ideas. It wasn’t the act of limiting their voice that created or spread their ideas. It was the platforming of such ideas that led to their “mainstreaming”.

Note: It also doesn’t help that there are things to be upset about. And many of these people are under the boot of someone. It’s just not who they think it is.

filmfann's avatar

This post has been flagged.

gorillapaws's avatar

@Demosthenes “If social media hadn’t been banning right-wing accounts, there wouldn’t be this narrative that right-wingers are under attack and they wouldn’t have become so extreme and so mired in their persecution complex.”

I was with you until this statement. Moving right to accommodate the crazy right IS EXACTLY how we got to this place. The radical right is ALWAYS going to play victim no matter how bullshit the reason is. They pretend like there’s a war on Christmas for fucks sake. I see about 20% of my Lowes dedicated to Christmas crap starting in September. Give me a break!

Also moving right to avoid being labeled a communist is always a losing strategy. They will call anyone a communist no matter how far right they are. Letting them define the boundaries and terms of the discussion is the failure.

There will always be flat-Earthers and nutjobs. We need to return to objective reality as the standard and not “accommodating both sides” as equally valid.

KNOWITALL's avatar

@gorillapaws When has anyone on the left moved right regarding policy?

What @Desmosthenes seems to understand that some of you don’t, is this can get better or worse. If you think a few hours was rough, you really didn’t read the posts on parler and elsewhere.

gorillapaws's avatar

@KNOWITALL The core of Obamacare is based on the REPUBLICAN PLAN for one. There has been no efforts to restore the tax rates to the pre-Reagan levels, Dems rubberstamp expansion of military funding, they invite war criminal Republicans to speak at their fucking conferences and severely limit the speaking time of any progressives. You have Democratic mayors vetoing $15/hour minimum wages. Virginia has a supermajority of Democrats in office and is ranked the worst state for worker’s rights. It is the antithisis of the pro-union, FDR working party from years past. They rig elections, and silence progressives in the party. Basically, Richard Nixon would be considered a RADICAL left Democrat by today’s standards.

KNOWITALL's avatar

@gorillapaws While I agree with the facts in your post, are you saying Obama shouldn’t have tried Obamacare? I actually thought it was a great idea and he was very honest with us, that if the young didn’t sign up in significant numbers, it would fail. At least he tried. And I can’t speak for everyone, but my household signed up and tried it, and we certainly don’t identify as liberals.

gorillapaws's avatar

@KNOWITALL I’m saying we should have a Medicare-for-all plan. If FDR were in office with a super-majority that’s what would have been passed. Instead Obama took money from the insurance industry and passed the Republican plan, using “bipartisanship” as a cover to do the will of his donors. This is about marketing and not about the substance of the bill.

KNOWITALL's avatar

@gorillapaws Gotcha. I don’t say this often, but you actually make me want to research more rather than upsetting me. GA.

Answer this question

Login

or

Join

to answer.
Your answer will be saved while you login or join.

Have a question? Ask Fluther!

What do you know more about?
or
Knowledge Networking @ Fluther