2 ms·
Yes, there is this common reverse problem: If we allow X to speak, his ideas will spread and Y will be harmed. So banning X is best. But why not: Banning X w
by mjburgess 8y ago
Yes, there is this common reverse problem:
If we allow X to speak, his ideas will spread and Y will be harmed. So banning X is best.
But why not:
Banning X will cause a back reaction in X supporters and spread X's message leading Y to be harmed.
Or any other of a number of possibilities.
There is a fallacy of "hypothetical higher order danger justifies first order violence (/action)" -- where the higher order thinking is mostly ideological fantasy.
- Retra 8y agoOften that fallacy is argued on the basis of artificially reduced complexity. "Some first order actions can be justified by higher order danger" is often transliterated as "this first order action is justified by higher order danger" precisely because it drops all the subtlety and pretense for higher-order reasoning that the original speaker intended as an unspoken follow-up. People often seem to allow others only the luxury of starting a thought, but never finishing it.