You genuinely believe that giving people like Alex Jones a platform to spread their crap will socialize them to an "acceptable standard"? He's a professional troll, attention is what makes him grow. There are people who have no other intention than to disrupt and provoke others in order to normalize discussion about fringe topics. "The conflict they generate" is inherently self-serving and feeding into it is what will result in growth and festering that can (and has) lead to real-life harassment of innocent people.
I completely understand your perspective, however
@AureliusofPhoenix provides a rational perspective to my position, and the implication of yours.
I understand that conflict generated by such individuals is unwanted, however preventing them from engaging entirely is counter productive. Believe it or not without such
"trolls" there wouldn't be such a significant contrast in debates. Such individuals provide easily refuted positions that quickly make them irrelevant in discussions. Yes they're going to attempt to stir up as much animosity and attention that they can muster, however once their position is proved to be fruitless they can be easily ignored, and educated.
Yes it may be more difficult to ignore them when they're heckling a speech, or using a platform like the internet, yet its up to the individual to consider the available information to formulate their own position. Denying anyone communication prevents consensus and the review of information, whether or not it's viable information is determined by the individual and peer review. Consider how the scientific method works, and how we as a species determine objective facts from individual perspectives.
Yes, I do believe socializing such individuals is a viable course of action. I know this because I have seen such an approach work almost every single time. The trick isn't to give them only the stick, but provide a carrot for them to potentially reach for. You may be surprised how one can be dissuaded when another takes the time to hear them out, and consider their position even if the position is nonsensical.
A lot of people seem to misunderstand that while there are some individuals in the world that simply want to see everything burn around them; Others are simply attempting to communicate in what they may consider the most optimal method. For example some individuals with autism have difficulty communicating, only through constantly socializing them do they begin to make progress communicating more effectively. Granted not everyone is autistic nor interested in changing their ways, but that's where the carrot and the stick works.
My time in the United States Navy also granted me some insight. Ever try debating with a sailor who's every other term is a derogatory phrase/statement/conclusion? It's like trying to understand a completely different language. Which brings me to my next point, memetics.
Not a lot of people understand the concept of memetics, which is the study of information and culture based on an analogy with Darwinian evolution. To boil it down humans are only aware of information provided to them, and make choices based upon that information. So if someone has been mostly exposed to a specific way of socializing with another, they are likely to assume that methodology is correct. For example when I use the term
"Noob" does your mind automatically think of a new player in a game ignorant of how to play effectively?
A prime example of this is how young children interact with each other, less socialized individuals of the younger age groups have significant difficulty engaging with others because they may be too abrasive, or on the other end of the spectrum, too shy to communicate.
I can understand if the information I have provided may seem outlandish to some, however applying effort to solve problems rather than ignoring them is really the only way to solve them.
I have engaged in many debates, and discussions where an individual consistently attempted to derail the topic. The funny thing is, if one takes the time to engage with them they do quite often even out. Personally I find the best way to approach a conversation is to remove emotion from the interaction as much as possible.
I once read in a very wise meme:
The point isn't arguing with someone an individual may consider an "idiot", but with someone that can manipulate your emotional state. Once one gives into allowing another to define their emotional state, its pretty much over for their position. So the best way to handle such individuals is to engage them seriously like they actually have a point, consider the point even if it's wildly insane, and provide a counter argument with a level head. The less control given to them during the discussion, the less power they have over the topic.
Therefore censorship of any kind isn't a viable solution, it's attempting to solve a problem by creating additional conflict. My advice, be the level headed adult in the conversation, even if you're passionate about the material being discussed.
