Why should we faithfully assume that people will produce that material if given the chance? There are plenty of "common misconceptions" in existance. (but i note that i think your argument here is the most convincing of the replies).
Also, will they do it in a timely manner?
>> I'd like the opportunity to make that decision myself
Is it possible you're not equipped to make that decision for yourself? In the way that a 12 year old child is not best placed to decide about drinking a bottle of vodka. Or in the way that if a doctor shared every detail about your ailment - you might still seek their guidance to help decide an appropriate treatment.
Mostly the "someone is wrong on the internet" phenomena. There are a large number of people who like arguing things and debunking. They just need exposure.
> Is it possible you're not equipped to make that decision for yourself?
Well, yes.
It's also possible, qnd indeed just as likely, that we should not have allowed the common pleb to vote on the grounds that they don't have the free time or the long-term planning to make good decisions on how the country should be run.
I'd consider both hypotheses equally likely.
"It's cold outside, put a jacket on or you'll catch a cold!"
This isn't debunked yet but it's had plenty exposure over decades at this point.
Some things are just too boring to question so plenty of people continue to put on a jacket to avoid catching the cold, which does nothing, rather than washing their hands before touching their face, which could stop some spread.
Eric S Raymond's all bugs are shallow thing appealed to me but hasn't really worked that way. I think that's a similar story.
I think this premise of exposure always solving radical ideas is likely to be false but it's not without merit because exposure and illumination are such great tools in other cases that are very like this problem.
I'm sightly surprised that someone would just come out and happily admit that they've been radicalised by the internet and are comfortable being a racist.
(Annoyingly, there's so many meanings of "racist" that it can apply to anywhere from 99% to 1% of the population, depending on which of the main definitions are used)
>... HBD (Human bio-diversity, the claim that distinct populations (I will be avoiding using the word "race" here insomuch as possible) of humans exist and have substantial genetical variance which accounts for some difference in average intelligence from population to population) is true, and that all its proponents are correct in accusing the politicization of science for burying this information.
I'd just note that noticing differences between races, eg black people are blacker is not racism really, it's more discriminating against races.
Scores on Raven's progressive matrices certainly correlate well with all sorts of things (working memory, income, ability to do computer programming, ability to write a popular story), so I guess it depends in how you are defining "intelligence".