3 ms·
I suppose it goes from one to the other around the time that the minority has actually successfully dominated the discussion well out of proportion to their num
by deciplex 10y ago
I suppose it goes from one to the other around the time that the minority has actually successfully dominated the discussion well out of proportion to their numbers. I think the far-right in America has been successful at this via movement conservatism for the past few decades, and definitely falls in scope.
Again, when is enough, enough? Is there any point at which you are comfortable - again at a societal level not as an act of Congress or something - with informing these people that their positions are unpopular and hated, and they need to, and if they refuse will be made to (e.g. r/news reaction here), quit hogging the public discourse in favor of some other people with fresher ideas?
I mean, it's not like "gays shouldn't be married, Muslims should be banned, taxation is theft, Obama isn't eligible for office, Hillary left people to die in Benghazi for no reason at all, black people are fools for the Democratic party, Mexicans are both lazy moochers and taking all our jobs, and on and on and on and on and on" hasn't gotten a fair hearing. Not according to my Facebook feed, anyway.
So, again, at what point is it okay to tell these overbearing loudmouths to shut the fuck up and give the 80 other people in the room a chance to speak? Is it ever okay? Should we doom ourselves to rule by the loud and obstinate?
- snerbles 10y agoIn my view it's okay to tell them that at any time, and just as acceptable for them to throw it back in our faces. What's worrisome is when action is taken to silence and suppress speech considered problematic, because that is a precedent that eventually can be used against anyone. So yes. The world will only grow louder.