To be honest, rational argument and evidence doesn't exactly sway people of the opposite belief because they, too, are swimming in a sea of like voices.
Every time big tech bans or suspends a user, another supporter of Trump is born.
Every time big tech bans or suspends a user, another supporter of Trump is born.
I think that's a US thing. Other countries seem to be genuinely more rehabilitative. Looks like 55% of the state prison population is there for violent offenses: https://www.prisonpolicy.org/reports/pie2020.html
Handling non-violent offenders away from the violent ones might be a good start.
That being said, what do we do in this situation (which is a common one I see in these kinds of debates)?:
- Group A claims X.
- Person N asks Group A to provide evidence for their claim X.
- Group A cannot provide said evidence, or the evidence provided is unreliable/cannot be validated.
- Person N asks for additional evidence that the claim X made by Group A is true.
- Group A insists they are right and refuses to provide any additional evidence for claim X.
- Person N chooses to not believe Group A’s claim X due to a lack of evidence.
What’s the next step? Assuming good faith on the sides of both parties, how do you reach some sort of agreement or conclusion?
And what do we do when claim X made by Group A is one that leads to violence or other societal harms (such as an increase in death and suffering due to the spread of disease in the case of anti-vaccination theories)?
I don’t have a good answer, here. I desperately want to have rational and productive conversations with people with whom I disagree. But how do you avoid a deadlock situation like the above?
*Btw, usually there are more then two sides: it's just stale majoritarian system which leaves people just two unsatisfactory choices in US.
But that assumes both sides are operating in good faith - it's pretty clear in the example that A are not (as are some sides in the real world.)
Recall my post that evidence cannot sway "person N".