• jet@hackertalks.com
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    4
    arrow-down
    14
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    Then you get this situation the article speaks of, people being de-platformed for speaking against evil in the world.

      • jet@hackertalks.com
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        7
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        Clearly we have a philosophical divide. We value different things in this world. We are both “right” to our own philosophies.

        If one group can make another voiceless i think that is a larger risk to the human condition, but I see where your coming from.

          • jet@hackertalks.com
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            3
            arrow-down
            7
            ·
            edit-2
            1 year ago

            I’m very consistent in my views, I do not tolerate anyone being de-platformed. I am intolerant of de-platforming. I do not tolerate anyone trying to remove the voice of anyone else.

            I do not imply, for instance, that we should always suppress the utterance of intolerant philosophies; as long as we can counter them by rational argument and keep them in check by public opinion, suppression would certainly be unwise. - Poppel The Open Society and It’s Enemies

            De-platforming is a form of rhetorical suppression, as OPs article points out.

            • moody@lemmings.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              6
              arrow-down
              2
              ·
              1 year ago

              Which means that you tolerate intolerance.

              as long as we can counter them by rational argument

              The saying goes that you can’t reason someone out of a position they didn’t reason themselves into.

              De-platforming is a means to show that the platform doesn’t want to be associated with specific content. Being against de-platforming means you are on the side of forced speech.

              • jet@hackertalks.com
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                2
                arrow-down
                5
                ·
                edit-2
                1 year ago

                I’ve never heard the term forced speech before, the only references I can find are legal referring to compelled testimony in court. Can you give me a reference so I can better understand you?

                The saying goes that you can’t reason someone out of a position they didn’t reason themselves into.

                I’m afraid I missed that part of Open Society, my understanding is the intolerance of tolerance was making it criminal to have calls to violence, at least as I understood the book.