[Funnygurl555]

Originally Posted by melonpapes

My post is like dripping in sarcasm or whatver u wanna call it. I'm sort of parodying the other side I think. don't quote or argue with me seriously based on that post lol. sry. no i'm not ignoring/forgetting that.

Oh, okay. Sorry I didn't notice the sarcasm ><

Originally Posted by aperson

Let's be clear here on why Alex Jones was deplatformed: He argued that the Sandy Hook school shooting was faked and that the victims and their families were "crisis actors". He argued that this was part of a deep state conspiracy to take away guns. He helped and continues to help publish details about the families of Sandy Hook school shooting survivors. He has encouraged his listeners to harass them to the point that they have to purchase private security and have hidden grave sites for their dead kids so they don't get harassed when trying to visit them.

That's the one part that I thought shouldn't have happened. I guess I don't know enough about this case. I wasn't finding this type of info on the articles I've read about the case.

These are not ideas that grow and die in the "marketplace of ideas." Correct ideas do not prosper over time. Fast ideas that match our existing cognitive biases do. Longer debate does not make the correct idea float to the surface. Louder influence does however propagate ideas and cause listeners to stochastically start acting on those ideas. Maybe if you don't believe me you'll believe a conservative think tank's publication on the new era of propaganda: https://www.rand.org/pubs/perspectives/PE198.html

In this case, it's pretty obvious that Alex Jones doesn't have a correct idea (even his defense team doesn't buy his shit), but in other situations, what's right and what's wrong is murkier. We shouldn't silence what we think is wrong. We all hold beliefs that are incorrect.

So for anyone who doesn't support private corporations deplatforming Alex Jones, my questions to you are:

1. Do you accept that relentless, arbitrary harassment is a side effect of maintaining free speech in our country? If so, what risks do you think outweigh the costs of this harassment?

It's a side-effect, yes. As I said before, it's the fault of the people who are actually harassing the families, not someone spreading "fake news".

The risk of this is honestly not having free speech and an open place to exchange ideas, that the only acceptable things to say are what the majority deems correct and appropriate. If we're not open to opinions that we think are wrong, then we won't question our own beliefs and be better.

There was a time where we thought slavery was okay. There was a time when we thought racism was okay. There was a time when we thought homophobia was okay. Now we know they're not okay, but would we have come to this conclusion if we kept silencing the people who went against those previously majority-held beliefs?

2. If you don't think harassment is acceptable but you also don't think that deplatforming is appropriate, what alternatives that may actually work do you suggest? Remember, "marketplace of ideas" isn't an option here.

Punish the people who make the families feel unsafe, the ones sending death threats.

Edit: Harassment is such a horribly misused term, lol. I read Scintill's thing and while we believe the same thing, I wouldn't call what's happening to Jones harassment. He deserves shit thrown at him. Not this shit though