3 ms·

The parent commenter specifically said "post[s] that threaten the lives of an entire religious group". Hardly comparable to something someone can simply disagre

The parent commenter specifically said "post[s] that threaten the lives of an entire religious group". Hardly comparable to something someone can simply disagree with.

ralusek 9y ago
Those are also specific posts, but most of the posters who share the sentiment of the commenter typically advocate for the removal of entire subreddits. Also, to be frank, I think that posts of that nature are exactly the kind of thing that someone can and should disagree with. Suppression of those beliefs by silencing them just means they are moved away from platforms through which their views can be better contextualized for them. The prevailing attitude that some people are just not worth debating says more about the person who holds that belief than it does about those they're accusing of never budging. I have had my mind changed many times, as well as changed the minds of others.
- overthemoon 9y ago
  I suppose I'm saying that disagreement is just a start when it comes to content like what was brought up. Of course you and I disagree with a suggestion we eliminate a people group. But it's not simply another unit of thought in an objective marketplace of ideas. The Overton window came up a lot in 2016, and I think it's useful both descriptively and prescriptively--certain things should be outside the bounds of civilized discourse. Implicit in the notion that these ideas should be confronted rationally is that its adherent is simply misguided, miseducated, and that sure and steady appeals to reason and empathy will persuade them, as if all white supremacists rooting for genocide are waiting for their American History X moment, but I don't think you have to look hard to find intelligent and otherwise rational people advocating vile things. The obstacle isn't reason, it's something beyond that.

3 ms·

The parent commenter specifically said "post[s] that threaten the lives of an entire religious group". Hardly comparable to something someone can simply disagre

by overthemoon 9y ago

The parent commenter specifically said "post[s] that threaten the lives of an entire religious group". Hardly comparable to something someone can simply disagree with.

ralusek 9y ago
Those are also specific posts, but most of the posters who share the sentiment of the commenter typically advocate for the removal of entire subreddits. Also, to be frank, I think that posts of that nature are exactly the kind of thing that someone can and should disagree with. Suppression of those beliefs by silencing them just means they are moved away from platforms through which their views can be better contextualized for them. The prevailing attitude that some people are just not worth debating says more about the person who holds that belief than it does about those they're accusing of never budging. I have had my mind changed many times, as well as changed the minds of others.
- overthemoon 9y ago
  I suppose I'm saying that disagreement is just a start when it comes to content like what was brought up. Of course you and I disagree with a suggestion we eliminate a people group. But it's not simply another unit of thought in an objective marketplace of ideas. The Overton window came up a lot in 2016, and I think it's useful both descriptively and prescriptively--certain things should be outside the bounds of civilized discourse. Implicit in the notion that these ideas should be confronted rationally is that its adherent is simply misguided, miseducated, and that sure and steady appeals to reason and empathy will persuade them, as if all white supremacists rooting for genocide are waiting for their American History X moment, but I don't think you have to look hard to find intelligent and otherwise rational people advocating vile things. The obstacle isn't reason, it's something beyond that.