4 ms·

Obviously I don't think I'd be able to convert a member of ISIS. But I engage my trump-voter friends all the time. Most of the time, we both benefit from such d

Obviously I don't think I'd be able to convert a member of ISIS. But I engage my trump-voter friends all the time. Most of the time, we both benefit from such discussions by gaining insight into each others' positions. At the very least you could gain perspective and understand how these distorted ideas originated, which helps prevent and address it in the future. Online censoring is the equivalent of ostracizing members of society for things they say. Sure you can do that, but at some point that becomes totalitarian. Not calling someone an idiot, sets the tone of a conversation. You can have a civilized conversation that contains very twisted ideas. The same ideas can be expressed eloquently , i.e. eugenics, but that doesn't change what they are.

freehunter 8y ago
There is something very wrong with the conversation if Twitter says they want to fight hate speech and immediately people jump to the assumption that anyone who voted for President Trump will be censored. If I say "hate speech" and Trump voters think I'm talking about them, that is a very big problem. Is there no nuance between "Trump voter" and "person who spreads hate speech"? Somewhere in the minds of the people who are afraid of Twitter's hate speech rules, they themselves believe they are engaging in hate speech whether it's true or not. And since the US doesn't have any legal definition of hate speech, it's up to society to create and enforce its own rules. Twitter banning Alex Jones and Roger Stone is just society's way of saying that the message they're spreading is not acceptable in society. Like you said, two opposing viewpoints can benefit from having a reasoned discussion. But hate speech is not a reasoned discussion, it's a one-way communication, generally against people who cannot defend themselves. Conservative or liberal viewpoints are one thing. Hate speech is something completely different. Again, if I say "hate speech" and you immediately think "Trump supporter", we're having two very different conversations. At any rate I don't think either of us are getting anything productive from this conversation, so I'm going to back out. Have a nice day.

freehunter 8y ago

There is something very wrong with the conversation if Twitter says they want to fight hate speech and immediately people jump to the assumption that anyone who voted for President Trump will be censored. If I say "hate speech" and Trump voters think I'm talking about them, that is a very big problem. Is there no nuance between "Trump voter" and "person who spreads hate speech"? Somewhere in the minds of the people who are afraid of Twitter's hate speech rules, they themselves believe they are engaging in hate speech whether it's true or not. And since the US doesn't have any legal definition of hate speech, it's up to society to create and enforce its own rules. Twitter banning Alex Jones and Roger Stone is just society's way of saying that the message they're spreading is not acceptable in society. Like you said, two opposing viewpoints can benefit from having a reasoned discussion. But hate speech is not a reasoned discussion, it's a one-way communication, generally against people who cannot defend themselves. Conservative or liberal viewpoints are one thing. Hate speech is something completely different. Again, if I say "hate speech" and you immediately think "Trump supporter", we're having two very different conversations. At any rate I don't think either of us are getting anything productive from this conversation, so I'm going to back out. Have a nice day.