Now that we have a new thread, in order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a complete and thorough read before posting!
NOTE: When providing a source, please provide a very brief summary on what it's about and what purpose it adds to the discussion. The supporting statement should clearly explain why the subject is relevant and needs to be discussed. Please follow this rule especially for tweets.
Your supporting statement should always come BEFORE you provide the source.
On March 22 2026 19:11 baal wrote: You are using AI wrong, in your attempt to beat me the argument has flown over your head at least 3 times now, argue the point instead of going: "ackshually Hitler wasn't elected, the Nazi party, which he lead, was elected and named him prime minster, your argument is invalid you don't know history"
Getting baal to read a goddamn history book challenge, difficulty impossible.
Neither Hitler, nor the party he led, came to power through free elections. He came to power through appointment by Hindenburg. Literally anyone who has read any book about the rise to power of the Nazis knows this.
Getting KwarK to argue the point challenge, difficulty impossible.
The point:
-The Nazi party was the biggest and most popular party in Germany at the time, if they were openly advocating for the mass murder of every jew they wouldn't be, unless you believe that 1/3 of German citizens were monsters and actually wanted to kill every jew.
I haven't read it but I know he fantasizes about gassing jews and mentions spilling blood, so yeah It's way less ambiguous than his speeches, but it's a very reasonable assumption that most people didn't read his book at the time.
I mean there's a reason why Hitler toned down his speeches.
Is this similar to the Trump party and project 2025? You have the non Trump voters who are like, this is terrifying and what he wants. Then you have his voters who are like, naaa listen to his speeches he doesn't say that, and the bad stuff is just jokes to trigger the libs.
Then a couple years later were living through them enacting project 2025.
Yes. if you believe half of 1920s germans were just ontologically evil then you are likely to believe the same thing about modern day republicans and I think it's a grave misreading of human nature.
I'm not saying Trump is a Nazi, I find that paranoid crowd retarded, what I"m saying is that it's important to understand the lesson and it's not that anything resembling nazism is bad, but about how normal people can do awful things, how our instincts like tribalism can be hijacked understanding these things are important for personal growth, not form political movements.
Setting aside the Nazi/non-Nazi labels, I think you're letting Trump off easy if you say that he's merely a "normal" person who has done awful things. He's a legitimately terrible human being, and is way, way, way worse than the norm. He's literally in the 99th percentile when it comes to the sheer number of crimes and unethical deeds he's committed. He's done more harm than 99% of all Americans (and 99% of all people worldwide, too).
Or are you also referring to the MAGA cult (and not just Trump) as a group of "normal people who have done awful things", since you also mention tribalism? Who are you referring to, and how would you define "normal"?
He is also richer than 99%. While money doesn't necessarily make evil, rich and powerful people tend to think they can get away with anything and Trump just proves that.
EDIT: To clarify, if you give a "normal" person enough power and money, most would just get coke and hookers but a lot might try some shady shit.
That's also a good point. He certainly had enough cash to start fraudulent businesses and pay hush money to cover up his scandals and rapes.
On March 24 2026 21:11 EnDeR_ wrote: This is why I wanted to get your take. Your thesis, as presented, rests on convincing evidence being used successfully to debunk a bad idea. I.e. prove the idea wrong and kill it, in your own words.
You presumably agree that that doesn't really work. So does that make you rethink your approach here? How would you kill a harmful idea?
Having someone debate the bad idea with someone on the opposite side as it were has been tried. It turns out that platforming bad ideas and setting them on the same level as good ideas legitimises the bad idea and makes it spread. How do you tackle this, in your view?
You are like the 3rd person who is essentially asking "if free speech works why aren't things perfect", come on dont make me answer these silly questions again.
We are a deeply flawed being in a complex world, speech an open discussion is better to navigate through ideas than central censorship, that doesn't mean free speech means a perfect pink unicorn world lol.
Ideas are organically discussed at the level they deserve, for example Richard Dawkins decided to stop debating young earth creationists because frankly it was beneath him, but he debated with many other people in a higher level of discussion, however there were still many atheist who discussed with young earth creationists on smaller platforms, this serves well to watchers on different levels of the discussion.
Debate doesn't legitimize bad ideas, have you ever seen Dawkins debate a crazy fundamentalist and think "damn this Imam has a good point on killing apostates"? No, it shows the world that Islamists are violent and crazy.
I don’t think people are arguing that.
It’s not ‘if that works why aren’t things perfect?’ it’s ’if that works so well why are things actively worse in various domains than 10/15 years ago?’
One does not have to adopt censorship as a solution and consider the cure worse than the poison by any means. But equally it’s hard to completely sidestep some obviously negative trends entirely
I think it’s telling you’re using Dawkins debating creationists as a reference, and thanks for transporting myself back to teenage me briefly there.
I say that because at that time, I think broadly speaking, that ‘free marketplace of ideas’ so to speak, kinda did work. I imagine I’m similar to many in the thread where my formative years were in a time where one broadly saw that functioning, and it was only with time and a good degree of reluctance where my position somewhat changed.
For me it’s a twofold and interlinked problem of the erosion of faith in various institutions, and what’s replaced that.
Or to put it another way, it’s not that the free marketplace of ideas as a concept doesn’t work, it’s that we don’t have one. And we’re unlikely to have one anytime soon without some kind of state intervention. The whole ecosystem is problematic and I don’t think the solution is censorship in arbitrary cases, the ecosystem itself needs fixed.
Platforming can absolutely be harmful, or the opposite, it’s very case dependent. Do you properly challenge ideas, or let em go unchallenged? Etc. Are you tacitly legitimising something?
So Dawkins demolishing some creationist, that’s ’good platforming’, but you can also inadvertently confer legitimacy merely via the act of platforming alone. If idk the BBC extended its platform on the regular to some more fringe views and those weren’t sufficiently challenged
On March 25 2026 20:05 WombaT wrote: It’s not ‘if that works why aren’t things perfect?’ it’s ’if that works so well why are things actively worse in various domains than 10/15 years ago?’
"various domains" can make any statement like this true.
Despite a skyrocketing increase in population less people have died in wars in the last 40 years than in any 40 year time period from 1884 to 2024. This is why I get a laugh out of the screeching about the "Nuclear Armageddon" and the "Climate Apocalypse". Things are fucking awesome man.
NYC had 2200+ murders in 1990 and last year it was 300. Yet all I hear about is how brutally violent it is. And , Its not. I hang out at the "Brooklyn Games & Arcade" for the "Def Jam Fight For New York" tournaments on Fridays and my paranoid Republican relatives fear for my life. ROFL-copter. Another big one is coming up this weekend! I hope I don't die!
Despite the rampant violence in that era check out how happy everyone in the Bronx, New York used to be. The bronx is the worst neighbourhood in NYC. This was called "The Bronx Zoo".
Yankee games these days are BORING. Everyone is afraid of each other despite the city being an order of magnitude less violent than it was a generation ago. There are 30,000 cameras recording every move everyone makes every second.
Given the many, many posts going back and forth in the last few pages on the subject I’d assumed it was somewhat obvious what I was alluding to. If I’d started some new topic, then yeah it’s overly ambiguous.
I’m not sure who you’re responding to with the rest of your post.
Fundamentally, we are in a situation where harmful content is actively promoted by algorithms because it generates a ton of engagement, which is something that needs to be regulated out in some way or another; until that happens, we are in a bit of a shit situation.
Currently, the way i see it working is thus: 1. Algorithms promote content that generates engagement, and these harmful ideas generate a ton of engagement so they have incredible reach in a very short time and self-reinforce. 2. Once a bad idea takes hold, there is no natural decay mechanism for the idea to go away. Proving the idea wrong changes nothing, it just reinforces the belief and continues to spread. 3. Without some kind of additional intervention outside of the social media space, there is no turning people back from these bad ideas. 4. The only way for these ideas to stop spreading is if people stop seeing them.
Which doesn't really leave you a lot of options. It's not like you are going to spend money to send a social worker to every antivaxxer home to ease them back from the edge.
On March 25 2026 21:16 WombaT wrote: Given the many, many posts going back and forth in the last few pages on the subject I’d assumed it was somewhat obvious what I was alluding to. If I’d started some new topic, then yeah it’s overly ambiguous. I’m not sure who you’re responding to with the rest of your post.
Less people are dying in wars. That's an improvement in the state of the world. Less people are getting murdered in the USA's largest city. That's an improvement in the USA.
The media paints a simplistic narrative that the world and the USA are getting more violent. This is not the case.
Ignore the BS; go out and have fun. It costs next to nothing these days to go out and have a great time.
On March 25 2026 21:29 EnDeR_ wrote: Which doesn't really leave you a lot of options. It's not like you are going to spend money to send a social worker to every antivaxxer home to ease them back from the edge.
it is all relative. i'd say the paranoia of nuclear armageddon was way worse and far more widespread before the Soviet Union fell ... than the ill founded paranoia of today.
On March 25 2026 21:16 WombaT wrote: Given the many, many posts going back and forth in the last few pages on the subject I’d assumed it was somewhat obvious what I was alluding to. If I’d started some new topic, then yeah it’s overly ambiguous. I’m not sure who you’re responding to with the rest of your post.
Less people are dying in wars. That's an improvement in the state of the world. Less people are getting murdered in the USA's largest city. That's an improvement in the USA.
The media paints a simplistic narrative that the world and the USA are getting more violent. This is not the case.
Ignore the BS; go out and have fun. It costs next to nothing these days to go out and have a great time.
It’s too hot and the trail with the wildflower meadow where the migrating butterflies stop sucks now because the stream is mostly snow fed and there was no snow this winter so the flowers and the bees are gone.
On March 25 2026 21:46 KwarK wrote: there was no snow this winter so the flowers and the bees are gone.
great points! the # of polar bears in British Columbia in increasing and because that contradicts the global warming narrative so the researcher discovering this was fired
On March 25 2026 21:16 WombaT wrote: Given the many, many posts going back and forth in the last few pages on the subject I’d assumed it was somewhat obvious what I was alluding to. If I’d started some new topic, then yeah it’s overly ambiguous. I’m not sure who you’re responding to with the rest of your post.
Less people are dying in wars. That's an improvement in the state of the world. Less people are getting murdered in the USA's largest city. That's an improvement in the USA.
The media paints a simplistic narrative that the world and the USA are getting more violent. This is not the case.
Ignore the BS; go out and have fun. It costs next to nothing these days to go out and have a great time.
On March 25 2026 21:29 EnDeR_ wrote: Which doesn't really leave you a lot of options. It's not like you are going to spend money to send a social worker to every antivaxxer home to ease them back from the edge.
it is all relative. i'd say the paranoia of nuclear armageddon was way worse and far more widespread before the Soviet Union fell ... than the ill founded paranoia of today.
Why are you interjecting then and not shooting hoops with your guido friends?
I mean everything is sunshine and rainbows right, why even delve into such threads?
On March 25 2026 21:16 WombaT wrote: Given the many, many posts going back and forth in the last few pages on the subject I’d assumed it was somewhat obvious what I was alluding to. If I’d started some new topic, then yeah it’s overly ambiguous. I’m not sure who you’re responding to with the rest of your post.
Less people are dying in wars. That's an improvement in the state of the world. Less people are getting murdered in the USA's largest city. That's an improvement in the USA.
The media paints a simplistic narrative that the world and the USA are getting more violent. This is not the case.
Ignore the BS; go out and have fun. It costs next to nothing these days to go out and have a great time.
On March 25 2026 21:29 EnDeR_ wrote: Which doesn't really leave you a lot of options. It's not like you are going to spend money to send a social worker to every antivaxxer home to ease them back from the edge.
it is all relative. i'd say the paranoia of nuclear armageddon was way worse and far more widespread before the Soviet Union fell ... than the ill founded paranoia of today.
Why are you interjecting then and not shooting hoops with your guido friends? I mean everything is sunshine and rainbows right, why even delve into such threads?
I have this morbid curiosity i guess.... I love watching all the old nuclear armaggedon propaganda from 1950 to 1990 as well. Its funny watching all these people with grim looks on their faces. 40 years of ulcer inducing worry ... for nothing. Ever watch 1983s "War Games"? We're all gonna die! ! !
My only real concern with the USA is the financial house of cards it is sitting on. Of course, this can be mitigated by moving a portion of one's portfolio into precious metals.
On March 25 2026 21:46 KwarK wrote: there was no snow this winter so the flowers and the bees are gone.
great points! the # of polar bears in British Columbia in increasing and because that contradicts the global warming narrative so the researcher discovering this was fired
"People say the Titanic is sinking but my end of the ship just suddenly rose 300 foot into the air. I've never been further from the water. #fakenews"
Not only has the financial press ignored the consolidated financial statements, but most members of Congress and members of the general public will not read the consolidated financial statements. Documents like the consolidated financial statements are not the kind of thing you want to read before driving. If that’s not bad enough, most people cannot relate to the trillion-dollar numbers in the financial statements. Therefore, it is appropriate to translate them into terms that people will understand.
ACTIONABLE ADVICE: put a portion of your savings into precious metals.
On March 25 2026 21:29 EnDeR_ wrote: Fundamentally, we are in a situation where harmful content is actively promoted by algorithms because it generates a ton of engagement, which is something that needs to be regulated out in some way or another; until that happens, we are in a bit of a shit situation.
Currently, the way i see it working is thus: 1. Algorithms promote content that generates engagement, and these harmful ideas generate a ton of engagement so they have incredible reach in a very short time and self-reinforce. 2. Once a bad idea takes hold, there is no natural decay mechanism for the idea to go away. Proving the idea wrong changes nothing, it just reinforces the belief and continues to spread. 3. Without some kind of additional intervention outside of the social media space, there is no turning people back from these bad ideas. 4. The only way for these ideas to stop spreading is if people stop seeing them.
Which doesn't really leave you a lot of options. It's not like you are going to spend money to send a social worker to every antivaxxer home to ease them back from the edge.
Very well put. It’s a tricky conundrum. Well, in the abstract a relatively simple one, but in the real world exceedingly difficult. Especially given the funnel rather likes being the funnel and being left to do that.
Get rid of the fucking algorithms. That would be nice
Well, that’s silly there’s always been some, but not to the degree we see now.
I thought social media was pretty good when I first started using it. I’d see what my network was up to, or stories they felt worth reading. Then that expanded to it being a hub for local hobbyist networks and the same thing. Was great for that, as most were on such platforms. If one was curious you could see what was ‘trending’ in the outside world as it were, but your general browsing was kinda internalised to your actual social grouping.
But rather than leave it as that, they repurposed it to being a content funnel. And frequently bad content as well.
Aside from being bombarded with terrible content, in ever-increasing circles because I would negatively comment on it and trigger whatever algorithm, I noped out when I saw friends in person and it turned out I’d missed an engagement announcement and a pregnancy announcement. They stuck it on Facebook, they knew I was quite active on it and they were both baffled I never saw it!
Rambling a bit so apologies there, but I think the nature of these platforms has rather morphed over time and it ain’t a good thing
Not only has the financial press ignored the consolidated financial statements, but most members of Congress and members of the general public will not read the consolidated financial statements. Documents like the consolidated financial statements are not the kind of thing you want to read before driving. If that’s not bad enough, most people cannot relate to the trillion-dollar numbers in the financial statements. Therefore, it is appropriate to translate them into terms that people will understand.
ACTIONABLE ADVICE: put a portion of your savings into precious metals.
The US is fine I’m not sure why you’re scaremongering
On March 25 2026 21:46 KwarK wrote: there was no snow this winter so the flowers and the bees are gone.
great points! the # of polar bears in British Columbia in increasing and because that contradicts the global warming narrative so the researcher discovering this was fired
"People say the Titanic is sinking but my end of the ship just suddenly rose 300 foot into the air. I've never been further from the water. #fakenews"
Actually laughed out loud there, kudos to you, or alternatively who you nicked that line off
On March 25 2026 02:53 Broetchenholer wrote: A party that gets in power can then censor things that are dear to you? Yeah, but if a party willing to censor stuf we consider to be free speech, the issue is not precedent. Like does anybody believe Trump would have destroyed the fabric of democratic soeciety in the US by now if only he were allowed to censor diversity in federal....oh wait, he just did.
False equivalency.
The German government made it a crime for citizens to deny the holocaust, it is not a crime for American citizens to talk about DEI.
No, you just get fired from your job because the trump administration does not like diversity in federal employees or even companies from abroad that have contracts with the American federal government. And in Germany you can also still talk about the Holocaust, but you cannot deny it. The US in this regard is retaliating way more against free speech compared to the German government and that is without any censorship.
The point stands, if a government is willing to cross the territory into making something that is normal and dear to the population a censored topic, that government is already in a position where the rights of people has been trampled. The idea that if the government can censor the denying if the government it can also censor talking about kittens is just wrong. Harmful ideas need to stop spreading.
I have questions about the German holocaust denial laws and I was wondering if you or any German could chime in, because I really do not know anything about how it works in practice, just that it is illegal to do so. I'll use some examples from here and if possible could you let me know if the person posting these would have any issues? In the case of videos is it only the making or is posting it a problem? And then if TL was a German company would they have any liability? And do they have like a time period to deal with it? Or how that works.
First example is pretty straight forward, it is posting just straight forward holocaust denial (I really don't want to watch them again, the specific one is Osama Bin Laden talking about how the holocaust never happened): + Show Spoiler +
On February 15 2026 17:20 XenOsky wrote: GLORY BRAVE WOMAN!
Is open antisemitism against the law? What are the consequences? (for TL related question, he was temp banned but for Martyring himself, he has never been actioned specifically for holocaust denial or antisemitism)
On November 10 2025 09:45 XenOsky wrote: i dont give 3 fks about antisemitism or racism or anything like that, a fking state has been killing and bombarding people for years now and you fucks are trying to make it look like they are right...
im done with this shit, you fascist mother fuckers have too much freedom to talk and lie .. fuck you sionist mother fuckers i dont give a shit if i get banned of this fucking internet forum, you are a bunch of pigs for supporting genocide
your fucking country is a lie, your religion is a lie, your world view is a fucking lie, not a single hebew text, not a single historical text about your so called society of kings, not a single builiding found, and you are using this fucking lie to support a genocide...
FUCK YOUR STOLEN COUNTRY FUCK YOUR FAKE HISTORY FUCK YOUR MONEY FUCK YOUR RELIGION OF HATE FUCK YOUR GOD FUCK YOUR PROMISED LAND
PALESTINA LIBRE HIJOS DE LA PERRA
User was temp banned for the martyring component of his post.
How about probably antisemitism? And does the combination matter or are they all looked at individually? + Show Spoiler +
On March 22 2026 09:44 KwarK wrote: I think you’re overlooking the pogroms like Kristallnacht. baal’s argument is actually the exact inverse of true. baal is arguing that we can extrapolate what they knew from whether they fled and they didn’t flee and therefore they didn’t know. But the majority of Jews living in Germany in 1933 did flee by 1939, despite facing considerable restrictions and being forced to forfeit all their property to the state. Therefore, per baal’s argument, we can conclude that they did know they would be killed.
Wrong. that many emigrated doesnt mean they knew they were going to get killed, everybody knew it was going to get bad for jews but not to what extent.
However the fact that many remained does prove that they didn't know they were going to get killed.
Right up until the war started we had German Jewish parents putting their young children on trains and sending them out of Germany. The parents had no plans for reunification, no knowledge of where the children would end up, whether siblings would be kept together, whether they would be abused, allowed to keep their faith etc. They just put children on the train and trusted that someone would meet them at the station and attempt to connect them with foster parents of some sort.
As a parent I can imagine at least some of what it took to do that. To abandon a six year old knowing that you'd almost certainly never see them again but that by putting them on a train and sending them away they might survive what was coming. They knew.
Not long ago there was a sad pic of a kid dead on the beach trying to reach Europe, parents take these risks in pursuit of better futures, a shit load of mexicans kids are smuggled with far relatives or even strangers into the US, you don't need such a threat to emigrate.
Also as I said in my post which you should read again, I'm sure many jews knew how it was gong to end and those were the ones that fled, but many others didn't and that's the whole point of Nazis never explicitly mentioning killing.
The Jews who stayed probably stayed due to a lack of resources, not a lack of will.
It's always the working class that pays the price and puts the dead...
The problem is never religious or ethnic; it's always a class problem. racism and religion are excuses of the oligarchy to carry out their strategy...
The Jewish bourgeoisie cared little for the fate of their "comrades"... they were only interested in protecting their class privileges. Some more humanitarian probably wrote a letter to the editor of a newspaper or something symbolic, the rest continued living happily in the United States or South America while complaining about Nazism, having tea and eating cookies with their friends on the Sabbath+ Show Spoiler +
(or whatever it is that Jews do on the Sabbath)
...
think about it, the Jews cared so little about what happened to the rest that they had to wait for the harshest repression to begin to defend themselves among themselves and take up arms. Armed resistance and direct action began to occur when the entire Jewish bourgeoisie had already left Europe like the cowards they are
In fact, their commitment to human life was so little that one of them ended up making the genocide of Hiroshima and Nagasaki possible ROFLMAO
I'm trying to a feel for how "harsh" (not the right word but best I can think of) this law is, and who all is impacted by it. Again any Germans whoa re familiar, your input would be appreciated.
On March 25 2026 02:53 Broetchenholer wrote: A party that gets in power can then censor things that are dear to you? Yeah, but if a party willing to censor stuf we consider to be free speech, the issue is not precedent. Like does anybody believe Trump would have destroyed the fabric of democratic soeciety in the US by now if only he were allowed to censor diversity in federal....oh wait, he just did.
False equivalency.
The German government made it a crime for citizens to deny the holocaust, it is not a crime for American citizens to talk about DEI.
Talking about DEI, no. But Republicans want to charge librarians with felonies for stocking books on the shelves that support what they think is DEI.
"The American Library Association (ALA) has found that obscenity allegations have largely been used to challenge books that touch on the LGBTQ+ community, sex education, race and politics."
On March 24 2026 19:56 LightSpectra wrote: Okay, well that strategy evidently didn't work in Nazi Germany. In fact, it's evidently not working for basically any bad idea. You mentioned flat earthers, they're rising. Anti-vaxxers, rising. Raw milk truthers, rising. Holocaust deniers, rising. Soviet atrocity deniers, rising.
LOL thats a child-like statement, "if free speech is so good then how bad things happen".
More like "your strategy to prevent X from happening doesn't appear to have prevented X from happening at all."
Flat earthers are mocked by society, nobody takes the seriously, the TV shows exist for us to mock how insane they are, and that is exactly what free speech does, it exposes bad idea for mockery and ridicule.
That was true pre-social media. Now they can find an insulated bubble over the Internet and circlejerk each other into increasingly fringe beliefs.
Holocaust denial is actually illegal in many places, so its not a good example, however it doesnt seem to grow less where its illegal, and you seem to believe censorship works.
Holocaust denialism is the lowest in Western Europe, where it's illegal in most countries (Germany, France, Belgium, the Netherlands, Italy, Switzerland, and Spain until 2007). It's twice as high in Eastern Europe, where it's legal in almost all the Baltics and Balkans.
I'm doing exactly what you're calling for (letting the sun shine on misinformation so people can publicly see it for what it is), has that changed your mind or anyone else's in this thread?
It's working fine, we should debate these ideas even more, but you think making illegal to talk about flat earth, vaccination and other things would be better
I actually didn't say that. My idea was you should be held criminally or civilly liable if you spread medical misinformation that directly leads to the death of a minor.
Misinformation like the one the OMS deliberately propagated about masks not working early 2019 in an attempt to keep people from buying all the stock?
Source?
So censoring the lab leak theory saved lives how?
How much was it censored? Quantify it, with a source.
Yes it doesn't do anything to treat COVID however, invermectin is an FDA approved anti parasitic for humans, it is also effective to use in animals, like most of our fucking medicines. It was a deliberately misleading framing, and the fact that you don't think there's anything wrong with it makes me believe you are also an intellectually dishonest person.
The "deliberately misleading framing" is you ignoring the fact that anti-vaxxers were telling people to take dewormer instead of the vaccine.
It's supremely funny that anti-vaxxers called the general public "sheep" for believing in science and then literally took medicine explicitly labeled and shelved as being for livestock.
Wrong, the CDC said that the vaccine prevented infection, Fauci said vaccinated people were dead ends for the virus they did this with no evidence at all, the vaccines trial's didn't test for transmission.
Then late 2021 when it became obvious it didn't prevent transmission they walked it back.
"To be fair, some officials have overstated the transmission protection provided by the vaccines. But studies did find that vaccinated people were much less likely to spread the virus, either because they were protected from getting infected in the first place, or by being less contagious if infected."
On March 24 2026 21:11 EnDeR_ wrote: This is why I wanted to get your take. Your thesis, as presented, rests on convincing evidence being used successfully to debunk a bad idea. I.e. prove the idea wrong and kill it, in your own words.
You presumably agree that that doesn't really work. So does that make you rethink your approach here? How would you kill a harmful idea?
Having someone debate the bad idea with someone on the opposite side as it were has been tried. It turns out that platforming bad ideas and setting them on the same level as good ideas legitimises the bad idea and makes it spread. How do you tackle this, in your view?
You are like the 3rd person who is essentially asking "if free speech works why aren't things perfect", come on dont make me answer these silly questions again.
We are a deeply flawed being in a complex world, speech an open discussion is better to navigate through ideas than central censorship, that doesn't mean free speech means a perfect pink unicorn world lol.
Ideas are organically discussed at the level they deserve, for example Richard Dawkins decided to stop debating young earth creationists because frankly it was beneath him, but he debated with many other people in a higher level of discussion, however there were still many atheist who discussed with young earth creationists on smaller platforms, this serves well to watchers on different levels of the discussion.
Debate doesn't legitimize bad ideas, have you ever seen Dawkins debate a crazy fundamentalist and think "damn this Imam has a good point on killing apostates"? No, it shows the world that Islamists are violent and crazy.
But this goes back to your original thesis that debunking a bad idea kills the bad idea. For debate of bad ideas to work as a cure for the bad idea, then it must be true that if you show someone that they are wrong, that they will change their mind about the thing that they are wrong about. In many cases, the opposite is true, showing someone that their belief is wrong just reinforces the belief.
In an ideal world, rational people who encounter new evidence that contradicts their beliefs would evaluate the facts and change their views accordingly. But that’s generally not how things go in the real world.
Partly to blame is a cognitive bias that can kick in when people encounter evidence that runs counter to their beliefs. Instead of reevaluating what they’ve believed up until now, people tend to reject the incompatible evidence. Psychologists call this phenomenon belief perseverance. Everyone can fall prey to this ingrained way of thinking.
Being presented with facts – whether via the news, social media or one-on-one conversations – that suggest their current beliefs are wrong causes people to feel threatened. This reaction is particularly strong when the beliefs in question are aligned with your political and personal identities. It can feel like an attack on you if one of your strongly held beliefs is challenged.
Confronting facts that don’t line up with your worldview may trigger a “backfire effect,” which can end up strengthening your original position and beliefs, particularly with politically charged issues. Researchers have identified this phenomenon in a number of studies, including ones about opinions toward climate change mitigation policies and attitudes toward childhood vaccinations.
So, the premise is flawed. Debating a bad idea does not achieve the intended goal of killing the bad idea once it has been established.
On March 25 2026 21:46 KwarK wrote: there was no snow this winter so the flowers and the bees are gone.
great points! the # of polar bears in British Columbia in increasing and because that contradicts the global warming narrative so the researcher discovering this was fired
"People say the Titanic is sinking but my end of the ship just suddenly rose 300 foot into the air. I've never been further from the water. #fakenews"
Actually laughed out loud there, kudos to you, or alternatively who you nicked that line off
I stole it from a webcomic but yeah, it’s good. It correctly captures that suddenly moving erratically in the other direction is also not a good sign for a system that depends on stability.
EPT
