4 ms·
I dont think that's a good analogy. They've built their own cinema where everyone who enters agrees that they can talk during the movie. Those who disagree ca
by dingaling 8y ago
I dont think that's a good analogy. They've built their own cinema where everyone who enters agrees that they can talk during the movie. Those who disagree can continue to use their preferred cinemas with less interruption.
Surely it should be seen as a benefit for other websites that they have sequestered themselves off on their own domain?
- manicdee 8y agoI understand your desire to draw a better analogy, but imagine for a moment that the point of talking in a theatre is not so much to express an opinion but to cause other people discomfort or harm. These are people who think it’s okay so shout in the streets, “death to the Jews!” Because they of course are not actually killing anyone. They don’t accept responsibility for their vocal protest encouraging someone who was already harbouring murderous thoughts to actually commit murder. They don’t accept that actions spring from ideas and ideas spring from words. They don’t accept that in a world where people aren’t actively blaming Jews for the world’s problems, the nascent anti-Semite will take no action because they are insufficiently motivated to take any action. So in the talking in theatres analogy, the worst harm is that someone else doesn’t get to enjoy the movie. In real life the worst harm is that someone is encouraged to commit genocide.