Bingo
1 Like
What percentage of the population actually research multiple points of view? Yes, those on FD do but most of society doesn’t.
If these free-speech platforms are the panacea, why are they not more popular? Usually free markets lean towards solutions that are preferred by most people.
Human nature. A great many people cannot handle the truth. Case in point:
On my politics discussion thread here, on the off topic board, I have always done my best to elicit views from all sides. I wanted a totally open forum with all opinions welcome. But lately you cannot locate a liberal over there with a magnifying glass.
It’s a great pity and a loss for the thread. But when people realize they are wrong they tend to remain in their foxholes. Human nature is what it is.
3 Likes
What needs to happen is undoing the new definition of what constitutes “truth”. What happens today is that true and false is subjective, and anything not 100% in your corner is automatically dismissed as part of the opposite position. When moderating/censoring, anything remotely gray area needs to be accepted, even if you disagree with it. The notion that “you’re either 100% with me, or you are 100% against me” is ok for an individual if that’s what they choose, but it’s not ok for a platform to use as it’s standard.
2 Likes
Scientifically, I disagree. Verifiable facts are unchanging. Take those killed in shelling in Ukraine. Only one of the versions is factually true. Even if somehow both side were shelling the same building - ok pretty unlikely -, only one actually would be responsible for firing the munition which killed a specific civilian. And that fact does not change whether Ukraine claims Russians did it or Russia claims Ukrainians did it.
I agree that both versions of the events should be allowed to be expressed until we can ascertain with 100% confidence the facts. The problem is 100% is often not reachable. That Ukraine conflict is a good example of it.
But, even courts do not rule on such a criteria for certainty. Preponderance of the evidence standard is set as more likely than not (even beyond resonable doubt - the highest standard- falls short of 100% guarantee). If you know that you’re not gonna get to 100% certainty, does it mean you should effectively not moderate at all regardless of potential risk of harm to society?
Take the example of vaccines (since anti-vaxxers are frequently censored), where is the certainty at on some anti-vaxxers claims that vaccines cause autism? 1%, 5%? Is the lack of moderation worth the potential harm to society for this low levels of uncertainty? Deciding to not moderate this information is actually making a call in itself.
In economics, the free market, although far from perfect, is still the best way we know to bring economic prosperity to the greatest number of people.
Similarly, the free market of ideas is the best way to arrive at the truth. If you think an idea is false you’re welcome to present an argument with citations to hopefully objective facts. if you choose not to do that then the reader can judge your opinion and dismiss it. That is the basis of the scientific method, the best way we know now to arrive at truth. in science the objective facts are experiments.
The Socialists claim, “from each according to his ability, to each according to his needs”. But who are the angels that are going to distribute the products of a society equitably? in the realm of ideas, who are the angels are going to decide what is true?
here’s what Elon Musk has to say about free speech. It makes a lot of sense to me
2 Likes
Yes. One hundred times YES.
2 Likes
Funny. 
2 Likes
Free markets are not unregulated. Why do you think free speech should be?
Then why does the vaccine-autism link persist? Was there new evidence or is it because it’s impossible to prove a negative?
What is the equivalent for truth in opinions/ideas? Going to Ukraine to see for myself who’s shelling who? I’ll pass but go for it. How about past events? I’m short a time machine to witness the events first hand by myself so I can verify what happened.
In science, you can reproduce events by recreating the same conditions elsewhere. This is practically impossible for current geopolitical events. Location and time matter and are not interchangeable. Mentally go back in time to January 2022 and see how the question of whether Russia is preparing to invade Ukraine goes.
1 Like
…and that’s the old (in otherwords, actual) definition of true and false. Today, it’s based more on how many people get pissed off about the information, than anything else. Things are declared “false” simply because enough vocal rabblerousers declare that they dont believe it, even though the rabblerouser’s own position is also nothing more than equally-unsubstantiated beliefs.
Exactly. We arent talking about 2+2 equalling 4. We are talking about when there is no straightforward, indisputable proof either way. “You cant prove it, so you are wrong” is the default response to almost everything these days, ignoring the fact that your own opposing position is often equally unproven.
4 Likes
The crazies are talking about that though, and of course it’s white supremacy thinking.
https://farleftfacts.org/white-people/math-yes-math-is-racist/
You need to get rid of absolutes or else how can they justify giving passing grades to people who can’t do math? And of course they don’t like the distribution of people who do well at math either.
5 Likes
Because there’s clearly a growing problem with autism (1-in-150 to 1-in-44 kids in less than 20 years). There may not be a direct link to vaccines, but it’s still an answer to a question that otherwise has no answers. And people without answers will latch on to any possible answer they can find. Figure out an actual cause of autism, and the vaccine link will quickly disappear.
1 Like
Yes there are a couple possibilities that show up once in a while, but I’m pretty sure no one here (the “we”) are part of ‘the crazies’. I’m also pretty sure no one here is in favor of letting 2+2=5 be the prevailing thinking while denouncing the correct answer, unless it’s for the entertainment value of trying to follow the thought process involved in getting that answer.
Or they get tired of simply being shouted down without being rebutted. These days the right seems to go with a strategy that he who shouts the loudest and longest is right.
Or maybe we’re just diagnosing autism way more (I did not say better intentionally). I work with someone supposedly diagnosed with autism (at least says so himself or I would not have guessed). He’s a bit awkward socially but nothing that prevents him from doing his job, interacting with colleagues, etc. In fact, as far as scientists go, he’s pretty much around the nerdy median. You’d never have seen him diagnosed 30 years ago.
Same as with the ADHD. When I was a kid, you had normal kids and you had kids who were called active. Now the active kids are just suffering from ADHD and need medication to do well on standard tests… Is it really an increase in ADHD disorder?
Humans are very good at finding patterns where there are none.
I doubt it. There are fairly significant amounts of flat earthers. Even if you proved a single cause for it, they would cling to the idea that it’s not impossible that it can also be caused by vaccines. Maybe it’s a conspiracy to make them believe that it’s not caused by vaccines.
5 Likes
The vaccine “link” has been absolutely rebutted. Those who are vaccinated are no more likely to get an autism diagnosis than those who aren’t. We have country-wide data from some places in Europe (electronic health records + universal health care systems are a godsend for researchers) that permit resolving this beyond a doubt.
You are right about people wanting something to blame. That doesn’t make the target of their anger correct, though.
The reason the rate of autism diagnosis has skyrocketed is many cases were previously being misdiagnosed. The rising autism diagnosis rates correspond to a decline in retardation (I forget the medical term) diagnoses–the kids weren’t stupid, they just weren’t interacting with the world properly.
4 Likes
Maybe your original intention for that thread was a respectful informative dialog of ideas. But it very quickly diverged into anything but a shouting match between two sides preferring vaguely disguised insults and confirmation to trying listening to opposing points. Not pointing fingers or blaming anyone but it was clear that it stopped being a good use of time (at least mine) since people on the thread were looking more for an echo chamber than a place to respectfully exchange carefully-worded opinions based on well-sourced facts. Plus there was nothing financially actionable in it which is the only reason I read these boards.
But I digress since this has nothing to do with this current thread. I’d be way more interested in trying to guess what Musk would do to Twitter to make it more profitable (assuming that’s at least partially his intent in a takeover). Because that could change my opinion on being long on Twitter (which I’m definitely not right regardless of whether he takes over or not).
It occurs to me that there is also the problem of fake disabilities to get benefits.
1 Like