210 sats \ 6 replies \ @UCantDoThatDotNet 26 Mar \ on: Tough Questions for Libertarians 7/15 libertarian
Exploring ideas and talking about them does not equate to belief in them. Even if it rises to the level of belief, talking about one's beliefs is not a "proliferation of... false conspiracy theories." Constructs like these are a result of the past 50 years of narrative control gaslighting. Free speech is not just protected - it is absolutely necessary for mental health.
Everyone should feel free to talk about what they are thinking about. If you disagree, you have internal issues that are harming the group.
Let's imagine you're a libertarian with totally normie views other than that.
When people are speculating about childhood vaccines causing all manner of long-term health problems, they're creating distrust in those medical interventions. Hypothetical normie you thinks the science is completely settled on vaccine safety, so it's reasonable to view that as proliferating socially dangerous beliefs.
reply
I understand your position. I don't think speculation is the root of the problem. I think it is the lack of care in distinguishing speculation from fact. Questioning mainstream narratives is healthy. There should never be zero questioning, according to the scientific method and my belief. There is a level of questioning that is ridiculous, but it is not universally unhealthy. It depends on context.
It might be dangerous if multiple seemingly credible and seemingly authoritative people make it into an institution that is responsible for decisionmaking over millions of people. And where speculation is elevated to presumption of fact without adequate evidence for doing so, it may not be ideal. But those who allow their fears to bring them to the point they are willing to censor others have jumped the shark. (fallacy of addressing what could be, rather than what is).
The construct 'social danger,' therefore, is the danger itself. To allow one's mind to carry a receptacle otherwise unlabeled into which another's actions can be placed, which then allow for otherwise unjustifiable force against them, is folly.
reply
I basically agree with everything you're saying.
These hypothetical normie libertarians aren't looking to censor anyone. They're basically enforcing a stigma around views that they think are dangerous to discourage others from considering those views.
We could flip this around and imagine we lived in a free society and there were these crackpots telling people that if we just had rulers violently coercing the populace the world would be better. I would definitely want that view to be stigmatized to keep people from entertaining it.
reply
I'm with you on that too, it's just that I would see addressing the crackpots claims as the solution. Or just laughing and handing them a pushcard that has 'top 100 stupid claims against our society that appear fully debunked for all time and where to go if you think you have a bug report to our foundational understandings (you probably don't).'
What happens instead, is people get afraid that the crackpot will be believed, and then the idea will spread, and then it will become a movement, and then the movement will take political action, and then they will form a lobby, and then they will take seats in government, and then they will enact policies, and then they will harm people. Delusional fears of what could be that are then manifested into reality rather than dealt with by the person who has... delusional fear.
Dude, it's just a crackpot. Let the guy talk and allow those who have a natural instinct to guide him away from his illogical perusings to do so.
reply
I want to apologize, I never thought throughout this back and forth that you were at fault in anything you said, but here I see I sounded kind of confrontational. "If you disagree, you have internal issues that are harming the group." Saying 'you' as though I meant... you, but I didn't. Good thoughts here
reply
I didn't pick up on any offense. It's good to hit these things from a bunch of different angles.
reply