Society used to "provide corrective consequences/accountability" for atheism/agnosticism, advocating for socialism and workers' rights, advocating for the abolition of slavery and equal rights for PoC, advocating for LGBTQ rights, and so forth since all of those were violently opposed by the majority of society. By using the argument, the parent poster and anyone else who uses it implies that they would not only would have been okay with suppressing those rights but also would have enthusiastically supported "consequences" for those rights advocates if they'd been around in the era before those people became protected classes. If this doesn't make it obvious why that argument has zero validity, nothing will.
What's more the "it's A-OK for society to beat you up for going against the majority" argument is an argument born of _conservatism_, since it literally argues for preserving the status quo. It's stunning to hear people supposedly on the left repeating it.
It’s a bit of a trip to hear people who think they are progressive also think mobs harrassing people is ‘corrective consequences’. It’s just mob rule. The actual nazis attacking people in Germany in the 1930s would have been ‘corrective accountability’ according to your theory.
We won’t ever come to an agreement. I think your point of view is repugnant.
https://www.peoplesworld.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/09/pjim...
"The system is working as it should."
I think GP’s comment is precisely that they aren’t free to voice opinion.
The challenge is that .001% of society is expressing opinions on that. And that tiny number of people making noise is interpreted as society, since most of society doesn’t reeee on Twitter about opinions.
For me, I’m not GP, it’s not worth the hassle and frustrating of navigating whatever is going on, so I don’t express opinions. I’m not free to express opinions.
The problem might be in how you speak, what words and phrasings you choose, rather than the contents of opinions and perspectives.
A study after each conversation, might reveal that each people involved might've had entirely different experiences about the conversation. That would reveal the gap.
There's a time and place for all speech. It needs the correct setting, and this is nothing new.
That you can use algorithms to rile up people seems interesting though, for weaponization. That'd be fun!
"Cutting off the network of people that moderates my views and is making my views less moderate."
I understand that people can be harsh nowadays, presumably because they often find the views of others particularly harsh and feel a proportional response is necessary, but not wanting to face that isn't an excuse - it essentially amounts to "The criticism that's supposed to keep my views grounded isn't working and my views are getting more extreme, because I don't want to deal with the criticism of my extreme views". And to be fair I'm making it sound simpler than it is, it's a totally human response to avoid sharing those opinions if it has negative consequences. My only point is to remember it's not the crowds fault if you end up with extremist views, it was your decision. We all have to deal with the fact that the crowd doesn't care about our feelings, only their own views, but we do it, and if our differing opinions are important enough to us then we deal with the consequences.