Browser extensions aside, if we've learn anything over the past two years of 'Online', it's that this simply isn't true. You can't 'debate' hate speech away.
Surely you can. To believe otherwise is to believe that hate is logically sound. It's just that people's standards for what constitutes "debate" have lowered so much (thanks to Twitter and its ilk) that it no longer holds any persuasive power. Consider that most people in the West were extremely racist just a few decades ago. It didn't take free speech suppression to change this status quo.
Confronting people who hold a belief for reasons that are not necessarily based on facts or logic can result in them doubling down instead of reconsidering their position.
There is some major amount of cynicism to that world view, and I prefer to behave as if the world did not exist like that.
I don't think banning is a working debate format.
My own experience is that, when doing it face to face it's more easy, you can really get through someone. People are less "protected" and have more emotional connection.
But on the Internet ? I stopped trying. Every time it's the same thing: People prefer to be 'trolls' and just throw insults and bullshit all day. Unless the person is actually willing to have a real discussion, it's almost impossible to "debate" anything. As soon as you are going to try to have a real argument, an horde will just "dunk" on you throwing colorful name all around.
It's sad but i stopped believing in the possibility of having any interesting argument on the internet if it is not amongst a small community or a very moderated one.
Teaching by example is, to my mind, the best way someone can guide others to those personal endeavors, which are the only ones that can grant deep and lasting changes in our world views and beliefs.
Not at all, people are simply not logical as much as we like to pretend we are.
Look at the hatred Jordan Peterson gets, who by pretty much all measures is as reasonable a human being as you might expect to meet on average.
There are many online articles these days saying things like "yet another white male point of view" horribly generalizing all white males as the same and that is some how acceptable. It's no different that than me saying all black men listen to hip hop and have big hair. (I'm struggling to generalise but I'm sure the point is clear)
Not sure what your definition of "hate speech" is but if it includes racism, then yes, racists can change their mind:
https://www.theguardian.com/global/2018/oct/08/the-white-sou...
This is very, very different from an internet comments section, where it is basically impossible.
1. Now we don't even know what they are talking about / planning some extreme crime etc 2. Those people are now only exposed to views which agree to their own points and not exposed to opposing views. So there's nothing which would even allow them to change their minds.
Humans aren't born racist / hateful. They learn it from the environment around them. By exposing them to more counter points, you can make them unlearn that hate too.
There will always be hardcore hateful people who hide deep in the pockets of the internet. The point is to not normalise them, not let them spread their hatred in public, and not to make people think that sort of attitude is ok.
They are exposed to counterpoints constantly, and it is not changing them.
This is not correct. This very post's topic implies they aren't exposed to counterpoints. Banning them from every platform possible doesn't allow them to be exposed to counterpoints.
Allowing hateful people doesn't mean we are normalizing it.
Also the definition of "hate speech" is extremely vague now a days.
> You say they learn if from the environment around them. This is exactly right, and this is exactly why you ban racists from your open platforms.
So you are saying that not allowing these people on open platforms where they are exposed to counterpoints (let's say 5% bad + 95% good) so that they all jump to another platform (8chan for example) where they are exposed to an even higher saturation of bad (100% bad) is good? That's basically exposing them to an even worse environment now. That's exactly what's making this situation even worse. Every mass shooting etc was planned on those worse platforms (4chan, 8chan) etc.
https://phys.org/news/2015-05-political-myths-entrench.html
Long-term conversation can and does work, but not the sort of hit-and-run debates that happen on social networks and forums.
When debating online, there's really two groups you need to keep in mind - the person/people you're debating, and the people reading the debate. Reading without interacting is generally accepted to be far more common than actually interacting, so that's probably the largest group. So even if you can't convince the person you're debating, you might be able to convince those who are just reading and don't have a strong attachment to either side.
Or you can give up, attempt to ban the badthink, and admit that your ideas do not have merit. Because that's what a lot of the watchers will interpret that refusal to engage as.