4 ms·
There's also lots of leaders (many important ones on history) who say controversial things. You are saying they shouldn't be given a platform by society, which
by twelvechairs 7y ago
There's also lots of leaders (many important ones on history) who say controversial things. You are saying they shouldn't be given a platform by society, which I can't disagree with more.
This isn't the followers saying "no, that's not ok", this is large institutions saying "no" on behalf of a vocal few.
- viraptor 7y agoMu. You asked if leader is defined by challenging things. I gave an alternative definition with an example of leaders not challenging things. (and sure, there are also those who do challenge) No-platforming is a completely different topic, and I have expressed no opinions about it.
- twelvechairs 7y agoYou haven't responded to my point here, this is just playing semantics and making me guess your definitions. Despite how you are dancing around responses, from where I see it: You are clearly denying him a platform by saying he shouldnt be a 'leader' (ie. keep his posts). You are making that decision by institutions instead of individuals. You are holding all the worlds 'leaders' to your own moral views which is logically inconsistent.
- viraptor 7y agoYou've made multiple assumptions about my opinions that I disagree with, and honestly it's too much work to unwind. I'd rather leave now.
- twelvechairs 7y agoI'm trying here, but you just seem to do all you can to avoid debate and confuse discussion
- sergioj97 7y agoYou didn't just give an example of a leader who doesn't challenge things. You literally stated that if a follower disagrees with the leader, then "by definition" he/she is not a good leader. You are implying that the definition of "leader" includes that you can't challenge things people may not find ok (disagree with).