3 ms·

"Why do you want to give ignorant idiots a platform to spread their ignorant idiocy to other ignorant idiots" Because the only way I can guarantee that "my sid

by edanm 9y ago

"Why do you want to give ignorant idiots a platform to spread their ignorant idiocy to other ignorant idiots" Because the only way I can guarantee that "my side" can say whatever it wants, is to guarantee that all sides can say whatever they want. We have, over many millennia reached a point where tolerance is considered a pretty high virtue - we believe that even if we don't agree with someone, we can live and work side-by-side with them. This is one of the reasons we have stopped trying to kill each other for believing in the wrong religion. This is a good thing. Note: my first sentence is taken from this clip of the West Wing: https://youtu.be/jmhC9e39aP0?t=181 https://youtu.be/jmhC9e39aP0?t=181 .

zimpenfish 9y ago
> guarantee that all sides can say whatever they want The thing is - the Nazis can say whatever they want. No-one is obliged to give them a platform to do that. Which means you actually want to modify it to > guarantee that all sides can say whatever they want [and be heard] Which is an entirely different kettle of fish and something we don't have currently (and never will, really, whilst there is an imbalance in money and power.)
- edanm 9y ago
  I'm not saying anyone is obliged to give them a platform. I'm saying that maybe we, as a society, shouldn't be so quick to call for bans of certain views, or for using our power as consumers to pressure companies to remove such things. It starts with Nazis, and ends with e.g. people on HN saying that Twitter should censor the president. Which at the very least, shows that there is some kind of slippery slope here. That said, I'm completely sympathetic to companies who choose to kick people off - I'd probably do the same in their shoes! I'm not saying I have a solution for any of these problems - I'm just saying why I find it difficult to so easily throw out the idea of "I may not agree with what you say, but I'll fight to the death for your right to say it".
  - zimpenfish 9y ago
    > slippery slope Oh come ON. > I'm not saying anyone is obliged to give them a platform. > using our power as consumers to pressure companies to remove such things Those two are contradictory.

by edanm 9y ago

zimpenfish 9y ago

> guarantee that all sides can say whatever they want The thing is - the Nazis can say whatever they want. No-one is obliged to give them a platform to do that. Which means you actually want to modify it to > guarantee that all sides can say whatever they want [and be heard] Which is an entirely different kettle of fish and something we don't have currently (and never will, really, whilst there is an imbalance in money and power.)

edanm 9y ago
I'm not saying anyone is obliged to give them a platform. I'm saying that maybe we, as a society, shouldn't be so quick to call for bans of certain views, or for using our power as consumers to pressure companies to remove such things. It starts with Nazis, and ends with e.g. people on HN saying that Twitter should censor the president. Which at the very least, shows that there is some kind of slippery slope here. That said, I'm completely sympathetic to companies who choose to kick people off - I'd probably do the same in their shoes! I'm not saying I have a solution for any of these problems - I'm just saying why I find it difficult to so easily throw out the idea of "I may not agree with what you say, but I'll fight to the death for your right to say it".
- zimpenfish 9y ago
  > slippery slope Oh come ON. > I'm not saying anyone is obliged to give them a platform. > using our power as consumers to pressure companies to remove such things Those two are contradictory.