>>9656656I think some folks took the idea that we should /consider/ different viewpoints to mean that we have to actually give space to even the most ripshit bonkers bullshit to come out of joe rando's mouth or else we're "suppressing discussion" or whatever -- while at the same time, we have forgotten HOW to have a discussion, and how to agree to disagree. If someone who's clearly paranoid schizophrenic wants to argue that the government has been replaced by space aliens and that Avatar is actually a documentary, we give him his space because it's clear that he's sick and arguing about it won't do a goddamn thing. If people wanna discuss political decisions, we let people discuss- even vehemently- because there are different viewpoints to that side, even if we don't agree with one or more of those takes, at least there is a discussion worth HAVING, there. In the old internet, people were better act discussing things because we weren't constantly bombarded by literally thousands of viewpoints all the time, every day. Smaller spaces give way to honest discussion. While forums definitely had their share of echo chambers and bullshit, I still feel smaller, maintained communities (ala livejournal) were generally healthier spaces than something like twitter. The current incarnation of social media has been a net negative, I think.
