We're using the same definition of conversation. My point was that right wing media is arming their listeners with fabrications. And those listeners then bring those fabrications to the conversation. They believe that they are responding to the legitimate points and concerns of someone else but they don't realize the extent to which their responses diverge from reality.
When you look at the conversations on a Twitter or a Twitch, you're looking at the end stage of the process, not the beginning. Prior to those "conversations", people had dozens if not hundreds of conversations within echo chambers. And that is where they crystallize the positions they bring to the public conversation.
Let's take the WR for a microcosm of this. Many of the stories on the front page are stories that the posters heard elsewhere, discussed elsewhere, formed an opinion on elsewhere and then come here to argue the validity of the point that they concluded elsewhere. If they formed that opinion in a place that reinforced fantastical ideas then they're not going to change it just because they're discussing it on this social media platform. They're going to double down because their first conversation was with people who told them they were right.
We're the end stage of the conversation. It's the initial point that requires significant examination and that's where you find people consuming Alex Jones rants and treating them like valid news/news opinion, instead of the generic entertainment that it is.
The best way to prevent the existence of fabrications and lies is by disproving them.
I do not really see such a great effort put forth nowadays to disprove the other party, as much as I see an effort to simply prevent them from speaking. The problem with this is that even the party that believes themselves to be "right", and "factually correct", never puts their righteousness or factual accuracy to the test.
Sometimes the toughest tests that I've ever been through, were against people who were clearly incorrect about many of their beliefs, but were also very capable at pointing out possible bullshit or hypocrisy in other people's beliefs.
I have personally never felt incapable of proving somebody wrong, no matter how hell-bent they've been on doubling down on a fabrication, unless they were just outright insane. You just need to have patience, and of course, the facts at your hand. As well as a certain level of respect.
You completely misunderstood what I said. I said that people need to accept when they hold the minority position. They don't have to conform to the majority but they should not pretend that they're part of the majority when they're not.
Well, you said it in the context of banning discussion forums. I don't think whether a person holds the minority or majority position, should necessarily have anything to do with whether they are allowed to discuss their opinions or not, or allowed a platform or not. And considering that Donald Trump became the President of the United States largely by promoting the beliefs that the people within those forums parroted, it's also difficult to say that their opinions are clearly a "minority position". It appears to me that they are quite widely held.
For example - I think people should not place as much emphasis on the equity of their primary residence because it's not real value (for a variety of reasons that are irrelevant to this thread). However, I know that my position is a minority position. Most people don't agree me. I can accept that. I don't and should not pretend that my position is the majority position. Even if I think I'm right, society does not agree with me. So I shouldn't be surprised when society moves in a different direction than I would. That is not a problem with society. That is the inevitability of holding the minority position on societal level issues.
The "how" is being done properly.
Another example: Creationism is now the minority position so we don't teach it in public schools. We don't give it a chapter in the science books. It has been silenced. People who want to teach Creationism can still do it, they can home school, they can send their kids to schools that teach that minority position.
What they don't get to do is force the majority to give their minority position a platform of equal standing to the majority position. If they want that, they'll have to convince enough people to change positions so that they become the new majority position.
You don't prove them wrong by silencing them. You relegate them to irrelevancy by doing so. If they're not going to adopt your position and you're not going to adopt theirs, that's cool. But you don't have to elevate their positions to a level that they don't warrant either.
They can do what the Creationists do and find another space to promote their opinions.
We can't really treat people's personal philosophies, politics, opinions on social matters, as an exact science, comparable to the evolutionary theory and creationism. We require a greater degree of freedom for the "laymen" to talk about those subjects, unlike about matters that are considered to be an area of expertise or science. We need people to be pro-active and engaged in politics because every man possesses a vote.
It is also difficult to gauge which is the "majority" and the "minority" position, as I have already stated. There are plenty of polls that indicate that some pretty questionable ideals are a "majority" position, yet they are not necessarily endorsed by official authorities or corporate platforms. The_Donald was a discussion forum for Trump fans, who were part of a movement which won the American election in 2016, so obviously opinions similar to theirs are held by a very significant number of people among the public.
It's much more likely that these people, who are certainly numerous as evident by America's elections, do not represent the "majority viewpoint" in certain industries, such as big tech, media, entertainment, which certainly are moving away from their views, but that's only within those specific areas, not in the society overall. And big tech, media and entertainment probably should be held to some degree of responsibility, to not just appeal to their own "preferred" audience of high-level executives in a boardroom, but rather the entirety of the public, even those that they are in disagreement with over politics.
This does not mean that they need to particularly cater to that audience, but keeping in line with the spirit of the West, they should allow them a chance to speak their minds, and be engaged in the conversation. Especially as we move towards a more monopolized, uniform corporate structure, with the development of a "fresh, independent alternative" becoming more and more difficult by the day.