A significant number of people are threatened by rational critical thinking. They instill these values in their children who then they go off on raving rampages touting false patriotism. You can't make them listen. Taking away their echo chambers is the only way to cool them off.
Wait, has this actually worked before? Ever? Do you have examples? For instance, when they denied "radical Islamist groups" access to popular social media, "radical Islamist groups" just started using less popular social media that is harder to keep tabs on. "Radical Islamist groups" certainly haven't disappeared...
YES. Recently many platforms were key in deplatforming ISIS and slowing the rate of radicalization. ISIS was an internet phenomenon and when their media was pushed to less famous outlets then their outreach was weakened.
Ever since the beginning of the Internet webhosting companies have colluded to deplatform the KKK and a few other notorious white supremacist groups. This has been largely successful in curbing the outreach of the KKK in the United States. It's also why YouTube is getting a lot of criticism for embracing white supremacist groups and facilitating thier growing outreach. This is a break from long-running comm business practices.
I have an example - I remember a time before social media and internet populism. In those days these same groups existed, but were exclusively on the fringe. You didn't hear people bring up radical alt-right talking points, or sympathize with nazis, or spout outright racism (as much).
The fact of the matter is that echo chambers encourage extremism and social media is nothing but echo chambers.
Another fact of the matter is human psychology. Humans have a biological tendency to accept as truth the first opinion they hear on a topic. This is a result of evolution. If your tribe member tells you a berry is poisonous, is the first response to argue? Or to just listen. Better to be safe than sorry.
When you combine that bit of psychology with social media, you see people go online to some circle jerk, innocently at first, and then get radicalized.
Now before any counter examples get brought out, just consider that while it doesn't work this way for every person, in every context, it does work this way for some non-trivial amount of people, and that's what we're seeing. A lot of users on parler aren't domestic terrorists, but if it's even 1% who fall victim to basic human psychology, that's enough for what took place on Wednesday.
So yeah - the example is the time before social media.
The time before the printing press was invented is certainly not an example of "taking away printed materials". Both the printing press and social media exist now. You wrote lots of stuff without including the example I requested.
Also, if you didn't hear racism in USA in the 1980s you've led a very sheltered life.
I don't need them to think like me. I need them to be self-reflective enough to admit when they're wrong. You can see this inability in action when their pugnacious behavior is held up to the light and they immediately dodge with conspiracy theories about planted agitators from the other side.
You're setting yourself up for lots of disappointment, in this life. If you truly need complete strangers you haven't met to do pyschological work for you, happiness will always slip away.
From my side, you are wrong. The stances you think I have are probably inaccurate too. Your side seems to always lock us into a prison of two ideas without letting us speak for ourselves.
The extreme assumptions and generalizations don't help. There are many of us that don't agree with you but don't exactly line up with Republicans or even Trump supporters at times.
Many Trump supporters are Libertarians that do not agree full with Republican ideals completely, but it's the closest home.
That already happened though. Black people aren't allowed to have guns. That's why police shootings now have to mention "unarmed black man" because being armed is breaking the law for a black man.
You just aren't the free thinker you think you are
> Well there were pretty heavy gun regulations that were enacted under Obama.
No there weren't.
> I guess Obama did allow cartels to have guns by continuing Fast & Furious so you're half right.
You're half-right because of this one, the Obama administration circumvented federal law to allow known prohibited persons to buy guns and then let them take the guns across the border. over 1200 guns were lost to known organized crime without even getting Mexican gov't permission.
Daryl Davis has certainly proven otherwise, but I freely admit that no one should have to have the sort of patience or dedication to the cause that he's demonstrated in doing so.
> What I have come to find to be the greatest and most effective and successful weapon that we can use, known to man, to combat such adversaries as ignorance, racism, hatred, violence, is also the least expensive weapon, and the one that is the least used by Americans. That weapon is called communication. [0] [1]
Incorrect, you CAN NOT make someone listen, you can only take advantage when they are willing to do so. No one will believe anything they're not willing to. If they open the door, only then does communication work.
You can certainly encourage someone to open the door. I've found that staying calm, humble, and listening first tends to cause others to listen in return.
