3 ms·

I understand and share your POV, but it's also really easy to abuse. If you think consequences for saying what you think are okay, it's no different than defen

I understand and share your POV, but it's also really easy to abuse. If you think consequences for saying what you think are okay, it's no different than defending dictatorial goverments, where you just "dissapear" if you say something agains it. Or Galileo being forced to recant his theory that the Earth moves around the Sun. So where do you draw the line?

staycoolboy 6y ago
> So where do you draw the line? On a case-by-case basis. There is no black-and-white here, it is a journey that evolves. "Disappear" isn't just for China or the Philippines: some right-wing hardliners in the US think liberals should be disappeared on the topic of confederate monuments, and some left-wing hardliners things right-wingers should be disappeared for suggesting liberals be disappeared. However, I think a good line to start with would be: "holding an opinion that calls for the oppression, abuse, genocide, or death of an individual or group of individuals because you personally don't like them is a bad thing, M'kay?" And then go from there? EDIT: Here we go, people already claiming "deplatforming someone" is "oppression". To them, I say: crack a history book once and a while. Or maybe read a newspaper, like learn about Hong Kong's history in the past two weeks and what happened to individuals who protested Beijing's assertion of control on HK. That is not at all the same as Alex Jones getting deplatformed for spreading lies about Clinton running a sex ring out of a pizza parlor. If you think they are the same, we're doomed as a species.
- dilandau 6y ago
  But you just wrote: >And completely missing the boat on "right to free speech" != "right to no consequences". Calling for the de-platforming, destruction of reputation, and career is a form of oppression.
- dpoochieni 6y ago
  It's a slippery slope from deplatforming someone to oppression. Might be good for you to read some history on it.
- luckylion 6y ago
  > > So where do you draw the line? > On a case-by-case basis. Let me guess: "at being wrong"?

staycoolboy 6y ago

> So where do you draw the line? On a case-by-case basis. There is no black-and-white here, it is a journey that evolves. "Disappear" isn't just for China or the Philippines: some right-wing hardliners in the US think liberals should be disappeared on the topic of confederate monuments, and some left-wing hardliners things right-wingers should be disappeared for suggesting liberals be disappeared. However, I think a good line to start with would be: "holding an opinion that calls for the oppression, abuse, genocide, or death of an individual or group of individuals because you personally don't like them is a bad thing, M'kay?" And then go from there? EDIT: Here we go, people already claiming "deplatforming someone" is "oppression". To them, I say: crack a history book once and a while. Or maybe read a newspaper, like learn about Hong Kong's history in the past two weeks and what happened to individuals who protested Beijing's assertion of control on HK. That is not at all the same as Alex Jones getting deplatformed for spreading lies about Clinton running a sex ring out of a pizza parlor. If you think they are the same, we're doomed as a species.

dilandau 6y ago
But you just wrote: >And completely missing the boat on "right to free speech" != "right to no consequences". Calling for the de-platforming, destruction of reputation, and career is a form of oppression.
dpoochieni 6y ago
It's a slippery slope from deplatforming someone to oppression. Might be good for you to read some history on it.
luckylion 6y ago
> > So where do you draw the line? > On a case-by-case basis. Let me guess: "at being wrong"?