[dragontamer]

Do you honestly believe that these lies that a huge number of people believe in are having a positive or neutral effect on the trust of our elections?

If it's neither positive nor neutral, then the only effect it could have is negative.

[Talanes]

And yet the solution to a negative can still itself be the cause of equal or greater negatives. Hence why I was asking if you believe it is a NET gain. Because the Government cracking down on speech, even obvious lies, will erode some people's trust in the system as well.

[dragontamer]

> And yet the solution to a negative can still itself be the cause of equal or greater negatives.

Cracking down on anti-election rhetoric is an obvious net positive, and needs no further explanation.

> Because the Government cracking down on speech, even obvious lies, will erode some people's trust in the system as well.

Too late for that. Dozens of millions of Americans have lost faith in the 2020 election. The only concern from my perspective is to stop the obvious bleeding: we must stop the false anti-election rhetoric before it poisons the minds of even more.

The lies are winning right now. Be it masks, election fraud, mail-in ballots, or whatever. My sister's father in law believes that COVID is a hoax, I have coworkers who don't think masks help and my mom thinks Obama is a Muslim born in Kenya. I've seen enough lies, and I've lost faith that these people can have their vision cleared with the truth. My sister thinks the vaccine may hurt more than it may help and is avoiding the vaccine.

Its clear that misinformation is running amok and nothing is stopping it. The naive "debate with them" perspective goes literally no where, have you ever tried?

[Talanes]

>Cracking down on anti-election rhetoric is an obvious net positive, and needs no further explanation.

Yes, it does. Cracking down on speech would further enrage all those people, while also pissing off a great deal more. I think riots are a more likely outcome of your solution than anything positive.

[dragontamer]

And you are just happy to assert "riots" and leave the discussion off at that?

I mean, I can say "boogieman" too and leave the discussion, pretending to have made a point. It will encourage socialism, or it will destroy freedom, or it will encourage censorship! (Etc. Etc). Come on, just stating a boogieman doesn't help anyone's point of view.

No offense to you personally, but a one sentence assertion is not an argument I'll take seriously. Your contribution to this discussion so far has been less than mine. How about you elaborate your points a bit more?

------

But whatever, I'll mirror you, so you see how stupid this gets if you just do one sentence assertions of boogiemen.

Your point of view will destroy democracy.

Ball is in your court now. Figure out a way to elevate the discussion. I'm not doing the heavy lifting unless I see some work from you as well.