[jerf]

Let me be blunt: I don't trust you enough to make that decision.

Let me be even more blunt: I suspect what you really mean is simply that people who disagree with you should be shut up.

Let me be a bit philosophical: Unless you are so arrogant as to believe that you are right about everything right now, the set of people you believe should shut up includes both your future and past self.

Perhaps you should accord to others the rights you are so anxious to claim for yourself.

[tsjackson]

There is nothing in my statement that suggests that every viewpoint that disagrees with my own should be censored. What I'm arguing is that the world has gotten a WHOLE lot more complex when it comes to mapping peoples' understanding of the world. The signal to noise ratio has turned upside down, and society as a whole has become more volatile as a result. We have to take the threats of this new reality very seriously and avoid broad generalizations.

I think that we can collectively come to a reasonable agreement about what should and should not pass as discourse vs. plain trollery. If someone is parroting "facts" about Barack Obama's secret Kenyan birth and closed door Muslim religion, all of which have been refuted, and cannot offer a standard of evidence that would be sufficient to change their mind, they aren't engaging in a debate, they are simply spreading a lie. That lie, and many others like it, have recently shown the ability to propagate propelled solely by regular repetition. Is censorship the only way to provide a pattern interrupt? I don't really know, but I do know that it is TERRIBLE for a democratic and free society to have huge portions of the population very certain about opinions that are totally, demonstrable false, not to mention that these same opinions also incline these people to be less tolerant, less trusting, and more aggressive. I don't think we should rule out some level of censorship, at least at the interpersonal level, for thoroughly refuted ideas. I'm not saying we should have government intervention, I'm just arguing that you should have every right to tell your angry, misinformed uncle to stop spreading lies at the dinner table.

On a personal level, my own standard is that you earn the right to have a discourse by being willing to let go of your viewpoint if it's refuted, in fact that's part of why you are entering into a conversation - to learn what you are wrong about. Strong beliefs, lightly held. The right to speak comes with a responsibility to engage honestly.