451–460 of 906 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Fundamental attribution error. There are no reprehensible people, there are only reprehensible deeds.
I envy your innocence, but sadly, the world has many reprehensible people in it.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> It's not a problem if someone with a big audience advocates for and does not use rational arguments, as long as that thing is relatively harmless. (Let's say Bono advocates for peace [..] Q: Who gets to define "relatively harmless"? "Advocating for peace" sounds pretty harmless, yet if you dare to mention any specifics - at least this year - it seems supporting it is deemed anything but harmless. Before my time, bu…
> Q: Who gets to define "relatively harmless"? Each of us defines this for ourselves, using our own moral compass.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
What is equity if not equality then? (Honest question, as I just assumed it was equality as generally that's something we've been historically striving for.)
Opportunities and rights on the one hand, outcomes on the other. e.g. - Equality: We are both free to operate in an open market to secure the best outcomes for ourselves - Equity: You made $1000, I made $100, we both get $550 Wokes will bend over backwards to paint equality as an impossible project, claiming that it is doomed because of historical white supremacy, generational oppression, moon phases, etc. We're aske…
Equity is not “literally communism”, it’s the pretty simple understanding that if you always start 40 meters ahead of someone in a 100 meter race, you’re likely to always finish first and they won’t have a chance.
So we put more (and therefore unequal) resources into helping the competitor who’s having to run 40 more meters than you.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> No, they also need a platform to make people aware of their existence, their views, and to recast their censorship to be in their favour. The whole point of no-platforming individuals is to make a statement that their views are seen as reprehensible and to stop them from being able to air those views to an audience. The only way that this works is to exert total control of the content of all communications. Otherwi…
Quoted post unavailable.
He's a black guy who went out of his way to befriend KKK members, and many of them ended up leaving the KKK when they realized he didn't fit what they were told about black people.
Censorship would not have helped, they had to be shown that they were wrong. That's what "sunlight is the best disinfectant" means.
Free Speech for Me--But Not for Thee: How the American Left and Right Relentlessly Censor Each Other (1992) [1] is a good read on how we got to a point where our ability to communicate across ideologies appears to be broken in many ways. For example, in 1963 Yale disinvited George Wallace, who was popular in the deep south, as a speaker. As a result, observers were deprived of a chance to hear opposing speakers' argu…
> Censorship is all these characters need to gain new followers. No, they also need a platform to make people aware of their existence, their views, and to recast their censorship to be in their favour. The whole point of no-platforming individuals is to make a statement that their views are seen as reprehensible and to stop them from being able to air those views to an audience. Not all ideological disputes are abou…
Who gets to decide what is acceptable and what isn't?
Our/society's rights and wrongs has greatly changed over time and that is only possible because of both good and bad ideas being heard.
No one person should be deciding what's acceptable for the whole of soceity. Every individual should hear different ideas, good, bad and terrible, and decide for themselves what/who they agree with.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Quoted post unavailable.
>I'm not saying that censorship is just or desirable. Just that it works. Does it though? Ideas are hard to kill. Just because you stop people from saying something in public, does not mean they aren't talking about it in private. In fact, oftentimes people even assume the thing you can't talk about must be really important or else they'd let you talk about it. And in turn, it holds more powerful and spreads further.…
It also makes sense that it works given our understanding of social contagion.
You're not trying to completely kill the idea. Just reduce its prevalence.
Also we have stopped viruses before, like SARS and Ebola
Earlier quoted context omitted.
After you root out these reprehensible people, what do you suggest doing with them?
Shame them for their bad behavior.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Censorship is all these characters need to gain new followers. No, they also need a platform to make people aware of their existence, their views, and to recast their censorship to be in their favour. The whole point of no-platforming individuals is to make a statement that their views are seen as reprehensible and to stop them from being able to air those views to an audience. Not all ideological disputes are abou…
The Christian right could make identical arguments, and a few decades ago had the political power to deplatform” those who disagreed with them. Why is your argument different?
Because in a liberal democracy - or anywhere for that matter - not all ideas are of equal value. The same goes for Putin's Russia as it does for, say, Finland. You have to decide what you stand for, a culture has to decide what it wants to value.
Some ideas and actions are quite obviously, objectively anti-life, pro-misery.
Two people saying the same thing or doing the same thing are not inherently achieving the same outcome, pursuing the same end goal, arriving at their ideas from the same place, and so on. All of that matters in a big way.
A liberal, human rights respecting democracy with a constitution is objectively better if human well-being is your standard, than a theocracy. We have many centuries of experimentation and result at this point, no guessing is required.
Which is to say, deplatforming two very different people that are saying entirely different things and attempting to accomplish very different end goals, is not the same thing just because they're both the act of deplatforming.
Shooting and killing an innocent person at random on the street is not the same as shooting and killing a robber that has broken into your home and is intent on harming your family, despite the fact that they both involve you shooting and killing someone. The same exact moral principle is involved in the deplatforming premise.