• 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.