3 ms·

I like that it's so thoughtful and considerate. This tweet really brings forward the debate and enhances empathy between the opponents. A really mature contrib

by fwn 8y ago

I like that it's so thoughtful and considerate. This tweet really brings forward the debate and enhances empathy between the opponents. A really mature contribution.

donatj 8y ago
I read it the exact opposite. I read it as a guy throwing a literal tantrum because people he doesn’t like are allowed to criticize people he does like. Disallowing discussion is never “making the world better” it’s quieting it for a bit while breeding contempt and violence. It’s why Trump is in office. You take away peoples voices, if anything you strengthen their beliefs. When you push them to places where only like minded individuals hang out, the filter bubble becomes unbreakable. Quieting voices you do not like is never a positive. Period. It’s a child’s solution. Understanding and exchange of ideas without condescension.
- lilactown 8y ago
  It's not "disallowing discussion", it's "not giving someone a platform." The author isn't saying he wants the person not to be able to say what he's saying, but that Twitter shouldn't give him a microphone to spew his vitriol. It certainly can be a positive thing to remove people's megaphones who are not acting in good faith, who are spreading violence and vitriol. There's almost no room for "understanding and exchange of ideas" on twitter, and definitely not what Alex Jones et. al. is seeking from the platform. I also think that one of the biggest issues facing "understanding and exchange of ideas" in general is the idea that no one can be earnest or genuine in their outrage. Your original post used the term "virtue signaling," but even saying that the person is "throwing a tantrum" is purposefully trying to diminish the idea that the OP might be rationally upset about the events that have unfolded.
- happytoexplain 8y ago
  It's as dishonest and biased to describes the entire issue as "disallowing discussion" or "quieting voices you don't like" as it is to describe abortion as "murdering babies". It says you don't actually want to talk about it.
  - fwn 8y ago
    Actually, "murdering babies" is the so called standard argument in the discourse moral philosophy had regarding abortion: https://www.iep.utm.edu/abortion/ https://www.iep.utm.edu/abortion/ US public perception might have swung to favor a different weighting, but not following this is clearly far from "not wanting to talk about it". I still think it is a great example for this HN thread though, as having different opinions is suddenly perceived as a hostile act with - presumably - mean intentions.

by fwn 8y ago

I like that it's so thoughtful and considerate. This tweet really brings forward the debate and enhances empathy between the opponents. A really mature contribution.

donatj 8y ago

I read it the exact opposite. I read it as a guy throwing a literal tantrum because people he doesn’t like are allowed to criticize people he does like. Disallowing discussion is never “making the world better” it’s quieting it for a bit while breeding contempt and violence. It’s why Trump is in office. You take away peoples voices, if anything you strengthen their beliefs. When you push them to places where only like minded individuals hang out, the filter bubble becomes unbreakable. Quieting voices you do not like is never a positive. Period. It’s a child’s solution. Understanding and exchange of ideas without condescension.

lilactown 8y ago
It's not "disallowing discussion", it's "not giving someone a platform." The author isn't saying he wants the person not to be able to say what he's saying, but that Twitter shouldn't give him a microphone to spew his vitriol. It certainly can be a positive thing to remove people's megaphones who are not acting in good faith, who are spreading violence and vitriol. There's almost no room for "understanding and exchange of ideas" on twitter, and definitely not what Alex Jones et. al. is seeking from the platform. I also think that one of the biggest issues facing "understanding and exchange of ideas" in general is the idea that no one can be earnest or genuine in their outrage. Your original post used the term "virtue signaling," but even saying that the person is "throwing a tantrum" is purposefully trying to diminish the idea that the OP might be rationally upset about the events that have unfolded.
happytoexplain 8y ago
It's as dishonest and biased to describes the entire issue as "disallowing discussion" or "quieting voices you don't like" as it is to describe abortion as "murdering babies". It says you don't actually want to talk about it.
- fwn 8y ago
  Actually, "murdering babies" is the so called standard argument in the discourse moral philosophy had regarding abortion: https://www.iep.utm.edu/abortion/ https://www.iep.utm.edu/abortion/ US public perception might have swung to favor a different weighting, but not following this is clearly far from "not wanting to talk about it". I still think it is a great example for this HN thread though, as having different opinions is suddenly perceived as a hostile act with - presumably - mean intentions.