Society self-censors. That is how it works. Purposeful censorship is only used to hide the truth. Believing that people need to be "weaned into the truth" is nothing but "nannyism". People will listen to whatever is available if people believe it is safe to listen. That is both a blessing and a curse, but it is how it is.
When exposed to the truth, a person will reject or accept it depending on how much cognitive dissonance (CD) they experience v. the strength of the evidence. Both must be considered. If someone is exposed to "the truth" without sufficient evidence they will reject it if it causes too much CD. If however someone is exposed to the evidence in an environment that they consider safe, they will very likely listen if it isn't too harsh.
We seem to be mostly in agreement on the above paragraph. The conflict is, I know that people self censor. They themselves reject the evidence if it is presented in a way that they deem harmful. There should never be some overlord making that decision for someone. They will do it for themselves. Then those who present good arguments, with good evidence, with minimal CD will be listened to, no matter the topic.
The idea that we need people deciding for us how to censor the information we receive is the fraud that we have been taught our whole lives via The Matrix that we live in. We must stop thinking that way, we must trust ourselves to be able to do our own thinking and censoring, and we must trust others to do so also.
A person can tell right away if a post is something they want to read or not. The idea that a "free speech" platform will turn into 4 chan is ludicrous. 4 chan is 4 chan because there are no other types of voices there. Not because there are "those" types of voices there.
Society self-censors. That is how it works. Purposeful censorship is only used to hide the truth. Believing that people need to be "weaned into the truth" is nothing but "nannyism". People will listen to whatever is available if people believe it is safe to listen. That is both a blessing and a curse, but it is how it is.
When exposed to the truth, a person will reject or accept it depending on how much cognitive dissonance (CD) they experience v. the strength of the evidence. Both must be considered. If someone is exposed to "the truth" without sufficient evidence they will reject it if it causes too much CD. If however someone is exposed to the evidence in an environment that they consider safe, they will very likely listen if it isn't too harsh.
We seem to be mostly in agreement on the above paragraph. The conflict is, I know that people self censor. They themselves reject the evidence if it is presented in a way that they deem harmful. There should never be some overlord making that decision for someone. They will do it for themselves. Then those who present good arguments, with good evidence, with minimal CD will be listened to, no matter the topic.
The idea that we need people deciding for us how to censor the information we receive is the fraud that we have been taught our whole lives via The Matrix that we live in. We must stop thinking that way, we must trust ourselves to be able to do our own thinking and censoring, and we must trust others to do so also.
A person can tell right away if a post is something they want to read or not. The idea that a "free speech" platform will turn into 4 chan is ludicrous. 4 chan is 4 chan because there are no other types of voices there. Not because there are "those" types of voices there.