RE: Rigging the belittling the label that stabs in its fake contextual jab... [Truther, Denier, insert label here]
I understand and partially agree with a lot of what you are saying despite the fact that I don't seem to share much of your positions. There is nothing intrinsically wrong with trying to challenge widely accepted facts, positions or ideas and this is generally not a useless endeavor to a certain extent. But you can't expect of others to agree with you if they see a lot of evidence (by their standards) that (by their standards) sufficiently refutes your descent.
You either want free speech or you don't. As soon as you start putting restrictions on speech regardless of whether you like it or not you choose a side. How long until they limit what you are saying too? This is a slippery slope. Once you allow people to restrict speech you may be in the popular group now, but once you are not it is too late. You've given them the abusive tool to silence you.
That's the thing. If you want free speech, this includes the right of people to see your intellectual positions as crazy or stupid. What you seem to be calling silencing here is just the majority of the people holding a different positions and having the opinion that a certain position is unacceptable to them. Thinking truthers and anti-vaxers are stupid should enjoy the same protection under free though and speech as being a truther or an anti-vaxer. It's as simple as that. Having many people disagree with somebody is substantially different from the person being silenced. And indeed, you will be hard-pressed to find people that disagree with truthers and anti-vaxers who would want to take the right of those people to speak their minds. They just feel that the proper reaction to those ideas is vocal disagreement and that's absolutely fair and the right to react in that is something that everybody is entitled to enjoy and should be protected.
Nope, I think you may have missed the point. I never actually stated my position on ANY of these issues. I stated many positions. I never actually stated which IF ANY of these positions were ones held by myself.
There is a difference between disagreeing with what someone is saying, and restricting them or physically attacking them to prevent them from being able to say it.
Furthermore, my main point through the entire article was the trend to immediately label someone because they disagree. I also was illustrating how the labels are so often totally inappropriate when applied to the person. They are typically a false dichotomy. You either agree with me or you must be racist. You either agree with any comment about Climate Change or you are a Climate Change Denier. When in reality as I stated the climate has always changed and likely WILL continue to change throughout history. Calling someone a Climate Change Denier is likely almost ALWAYS a false label. Manmade Climate Change Denier would likely be true a lot of the time, but that is not what they use.
Another one I left out. People against ILLEGAL Immigration are often called and labeled as Anti-Immigration. They are not. They are just against illegal immigration which can also be called trespass.
So my entire article was about the haste to label people and use false dichotomies. I presented many different view points to show that there are far more than TWO possible choices in most cases. Yet, people use the false dichotomy to try to force people into camps and groups.
I was using you in the hypothetical, like a synonym for one. I need to stop doing that as it is indeed confusing.
There is, that is indeed part of what I was saying. But physical attacks are extremely rare and most free countries around the world have very little restriction on what you can say (though some of the supposedly free world unfortunately has). The vastly overwhelming majority of what you are seeing against those unpopular positions you are talking about is vocal disagreement and nothing else which is and should be treated as protected free speech.
Oh, that falls squarely in the part I agree with.
I'm not sure if this is predominantly forced and taken advantage of or simply human nature, but I guess it's both. Turing issues into us vs. them conflicts is quite unproductive and does indeed stifle productive debate and allows each side to vilify the other one. Labels are quite useful in designating the teams and I agree that some of them come in bundles and one is expected by both sides to not pick and chose based on evidence and logic but on team preference.
Cool that makes sense. I do that sometimes too and it indeed can confuse things.
The problem is not every situation is a sporting event or team issue. People due try to treat them as they are though. That's probably a big part of the problem.
Yep, intellectual issues are by no means sporting events.
Another thing at play when you think about it is that we start identifying with the labels too and when we start seeing data that contradicts the position we have accepted, sometimes we prefer keeping our identity and label and we ignore the contradicting evidence to do so. That's why accepting a label immediately makes us more close-minded.
On reddit (back when I used it) I was literally called a leftist and a rightest in the same thread. It's happened more than once. LOL. I don't use reddit anymore. Steemit is my home online.
Another thing at play? no pun right?