3 ms·
> I'm happy to discuss them, but not to fight for them. What is "fight for them"? You want to discuss your views but not be criticized for them? Are you surpri
by rhcom2 8y ago
> I'm happy to discuss them, but not to fight for them.
What is "fight for them"? You want to discuss your views but not be criticized for them? Are you surprised people fighting for social justice have a strong reaction against viewports they feel are attacking their very personhood?
- deleted 8y ago[deleted]
- AnthonyMouse 8y ago> You want to discuss your views but not be criticized for them? Yes, that is how civilized discussion works. You criticize the idea, not the person who disagrees with you. Ad hominem attacks that escalate into trying to get people fired are not a debating tactic, they're an attack on the mechanism of open discussion itself.
- deleted 8y ago[deleted]
- deleted 8y ago[deleted]
- rebuilder 8y agoIt seems hard to maintain civil political discourse in an environment where the discussion is public and participation is largely open to all. I think this is to some extent because when we think of discussion, we think of answering questions like "what should we do", but without privacy and barriers to entry, discussions enter the other realm of politics where the main question is "how do we get it done". The former requires openness to self-doubt, which in the latter context is harmful to achieving goals.
- rhcom2 8y agoI meant he sounds like he wants his to discuss his views but not have his views criticized. Also people often take criticism of their ideas as personal attacks so framing criticism as an ad hominem attack is often used to silence the criticism.