[zenapollo]

Jon has some great points here about let’s have the hard conversations, and i support his fearless contrarianism. However it’s more of a moralistic liberal ideal than anything resembling a real solution.

I think one of the misses is the implication that we can treat people like intelligent adults, and allow them to show up as adults. Vs if we censor conversations (infantilizing the audience) the bad ideas will metastasize.

If we if had to choose between metastasize and sepsis, the choice is clear.

If we are talking about a school environment i would 100 agree with Jon. But i think the larger population has proven that they are not intelligent adults (a really sad state) and can not be trusted with bad ideas prone to virality.

I lean with Jon’s idealism. I prefer the new Twitter over the old. But the tradeoffs are nuanced. There are not many clear and articulate thinkers equipped for the insanely complex times we find ourselves in.

[prepend]

> If we if had to choose between metastasize and sepsis, the choice is clear.

Fortunately, that is not the choice here. Strawman reductionism is not very productive, especially when dealing with really important consequences like reducing interactions and genuine connections between people.

[zenapollo]

I agree with you it’s not a dichotomy of one or the other happening per se, rather the choice is the risk of one vs the other happening. The risk that a nation could become fully infected with racist or tribalist views is unfortunately anything but a straw man. I’m not arguing for anything resembling censorship, but i think there’s a reason that moderation on social media platforms is a big topic right now.