Quote:
Originally Posted by rubecube
So you're fine with say giving anti-vaxxers as much of a platform as they need, despite overwhelming evidence that what they're spewing is incredibly harmful?
|
I thought we were talking about social values and ideas rather than science. But if people are peddling scientifically false lies that are a threat to public health*, they should be challenged over their lies.
But I don't really understand what you mean by 'give them a platform.' Speech isn't rationed. How would you stop them from spreading their bull####, and how would you ensure that whatever method you use couldn't also be used to stop people from saying other unpopular things?
In order to suppress 'bad' speech you need to 1) Give some people the power to police the speech of others, 2) have faith that those people are so wise that they're able to distinguish bad ideas from good without fail, and 3) hope they won't abuse that power to suppress their political or ideological enemies.
That's a big ask.
* It's not even clear what to do about bad health information, and where you draw the line. A doctor came out earlier in the week and slammed the notion that coconut oil is a healthy option, saying it's one of the worst things you can eat. A report came out yesterday saying alcohol has no health benefits, and public health authorities should push a message of zero consumption. So should we 'no platform' people marketing coconut oil as a healthy option, and anyone saying a glass of wine a day is good for you?