Frankly, yes, those ideas are just "quirky", if you want to use that word. I would use "extreme", and maybe even "a bit crazy", but I still think deplatforming

Frankly, yes, those ideas are just "quirky", if you want to use that word. I would use "extreme", and maybe even "a bit crazy", but I still think deplatforming those stupid ideas is wrong, because: 1) you should be able to say stupid stuff in public, as long as it does not actually cause violence ... 2) ... Which I think this does not. Yes, the line is blurred, but that's the point - is presumption of innocence a good idea? I think yes, mainly because 3) this deplatforming apparently does not work to reduce the following of such people (I might be wrong, but have not seen any data disproving this). Btw I get the impression that Trump has said similarly abhorrent things. Should we deplatform him? The slippery slope arguments starts to get real when you expand the bans to people like the one you quoted (assuming those were the worst things from him).