4 ms·
Deplatforming loud voices under implicit threat of termination doesn't reduce "silencing". I have never ever bought the "we have to silence people so people ca
by faeriechangling 6y ago
Deplatforming loud voices under implicit threat of termination doesn't reduce "silencing". I have never ever bought the "we have to silence people so people can have free speech" line of argument, which I've mostly seen over the last 5 years being used to justify banning conservatives from college campuses. Quiet voices are deciding to silence themselves voluntarily, they aren't victims we need to protect by silencing others.
I'm not saying such silencing doesn't have benefits, but ensuring people aren't silenced isn't a benefit of silencing people. Bombing for peace generally doesn't result in peace, just more bombing.
- digitaltrees 6y agoI would not ban conservative voices from college campuses. The work place, however, is not a college. I would prohibit any inflammatory speech that was serving to divide and distract the team. We share more in common that we disagree on. In a team setting we need to be United and aligned full stop. If you’re in the army and heading into battle you don’t debate philosophy, art or sports you focus on the mission and unit cohesion. In college you debate and explore ideas. Different contexts. Different purposes. Different rules.