Disagree, work out why they’re extremists and try to change that. Would a little open debate do well in many countries / religions that we could both think of? Yep.
Youtube makes people a LOT of money. Make a video about today’s news stories if you’re there for the $$$$. Make them controversial and hello likes and £10k home studios.
The opposite is true more often than not. You can’t debate with people who don’t care about facts, who twists and manipulate everything. Once they have a platform they will twist other people’s minds as they know 90% of people don’t have the time, interest or skill to fact-check them effectively. Debating extremists only leads them to convert more people to extremism.
Our current political rhetoric is dominated by far right talking points. It’s hilarious they still claim to be silenced.
2 Likes
It really isn’t, well, not unless I’m reading the wrong parts of the BBC’s website.
I’ve noticed people like Ben Shapiro seem to spend a lot of their time claiming to be silenced on platforms that seem not to be silencing them.
What these right wing crybaby fucktards actually want is to spout whatever offensive shit comes to mind, and it not to affect their lucrative publishing deals, Social media platforms and public image. It doesn’t work like that and it never has.
3 Likes
I think it can be difficult to objectively get a sense of where the media or social platforms are in terms of what viewpoints have a greater platform or reach because views that contrast with your own tend to stand out. If you lean to the left you’re going to notice and get more exercised about seeing views being broadcast that don’t align with your perspective and vice versa if your views lean to the right. It also depends on the platform itself.
Something I object to which you see a lot is dismissing someone’s views simply because of who has said it. Yes, they may have a history of expressing views about which you vehemently disagree but that doesn’t mean that all of their views are wrong and should be automatically dismissed or censured.
2 Likes
I’ve just put several Eddie Izzard vids up in another thread. He’s one of the funniest comedians I’ve ever seen and we’re diametrically oposed on politics. Doesn’t stop me liking him or his humor. I also think Stephen Fry is brilliant, again, not on politics. As you say, dismissing people because of who they are and what they might have said is ridiculous.
I initially held this position as well. However, I shifted. On TIA we sadly had posters that believed in David Ickle. The conspiracy theorist that believes in lizard people, that COVID was a hoax, or designed by Bill Gates.
I believed that we should allow the natural outcome of free of speech and debate. That the bubble their thoughts existed in would pop once exposed to challenge within forum. What we learnt was the opposite. By allowing David Ickles views it became a platform for spreading misinformation. Dangerous misinformation and I was surprised by the good posters taken in by that nonsense.
If an argument relies upon quoting Indykaila, The S*n, David Ickle or Shapiro the argument is already lost. As the value of their words holds little weight, as they are known to spread lies or misinformation. No one is going to listen when someone says German policies on Public Works in the 1930-1940s is a good model. Because of broader associations of that period and government.
Shapiro given his consistent misrepresentation of reality is someone I prefer does not getting oxygen on here. There are far better alternative options. If you have the option quoting the Athletic, there is no need to quote koptalk. If your only option is to quote koptalk (as an example) people should think twice. Both on the argument and how people will perceive them using that source.
6 Likes
But surely, the best thing to do with David “He of the Purple Tracksuit” Ike is to listen to what he’s saying, systematically debunk him then move on. Just ignoring him because at one point he said some mad shit is surely to put one’s fingers in one’s ears?
I love the flat earthers. Their videos are epic. If I post one here though, it doesn’t mean I agree with them. It means “Look at these absolute clowns and their mad ideas”
That’s the issue though isn’t it. You cant debunk them, they don’t listen and usually have a convenient excuse to hand. Put simply there’s nothing gained from it (bar a little entertainment from time to time).
In the case of Shapiro you know he’s just going to shout you down with noise. Flat Earthers simply scream fake. I don’t know what the purple tracksuit monster does.
I all honesty I don’t know what the answer is. Allowing them a platform and tearing their arguments to shreds doesn’t work and gives them the room they crave to spread more fake information. Taking that platform away only enrages them further.
They are like a huge wedge driving people to the two extremes of (enter words here)
3 Likes
Really? I thought his contributions in the Brexit referendum were a decisive contributing factor to the size of the leave vote.
And he’s a member of Labour Party.
Oooops, we’ve both used his and him. Locked up for that in Canada. Ish.
The problem is that David Icke knows right thinking people are going to laugh at him and mock him. He isn’t interested in that. He is interested in weak, vulnerable people who will buy the shit he’s peddling.
The extent to which you platform shits like David Icke is similar to whether you think society has a duty to try and protect people from alcoholism and drug abuse. Should we try and protect vulnerable people or leave them to the wolves.
The other problem with people like this is that the ‘let them have their crazy beliefs’ argument has been left a bit battered by the last decade and the rise of social media. When David Icke first started peddling his bullshit he was mocked and ridiculed and couldn’t get a platform because he was clearly fucking mental. He has been able to build a massive audience on social media, assisted by the way their algorithms funnel gullible people towards him, and this is a huge problem. Those people are not getting a balanced debate hearing both sides, they are just being fed dangerous bullshit.
3 Likes
I know. His interventions were fucking risible. I felt like voting leave after his question time performance. It takes a special kind of prick to make Nigel Farage look like the reasonable, measured one.
I think he’s overrated as a comedian as well. Loved his early stuff. Went off him when saw a show from a few years ago that mostly consisted of him just making weird noises.
Saw him at the Apollo 20 years ago, still sore. Walked past him in a book shop in Heathrow a few years ago, kept walking.
Does this news qualify for this thread!!!
Just in case anybody was even vaguely unsure about the BBC:
And that’s while they employ Tory government cronies into the top positions?
Something doesn’t add up
Go woke or go broke. How very 2019.