3 ms·

But who then decides if someone crossed that red line? And what if that decision is being done in bad faith? Again, I am not talking about censorship by the go

But who then decides if someone crossed that red line? And what if that decision is being done in bad faith? Again, I am not talking about censorship by the government. I am talking about some people deciding its not worth to listen to some other people, and therefore not giving them a platform? Isn't that my free choice - you can talk freely, but I can just not listen to you? Isn't what you propose - taking away the right to free speech - far worse than censorship? Would you jail people if they still speak freely after they crossed that red line?

Moodles 5y ago
Honestly if a bunch of people wanted to censor someone I would want to listen to that person even more. I also think you’re kinda playing Devil’s advocate a bit much here. We have red lines in conversations already. E.g. advocating violence against another group of people is a red line for a lot of people. E.g. Advocating the superiority of one particular race is usually a red line for people.
- j_wtf_all_taken 5y ago
  > Honestly if a bunch of people wanted to censor someone I would want to listen to that person even more. Sure, you can do that. For me, it would probably depend on who did the "censoring" (see below). > I also think you’re kinda playing Devil’s advocate a bit much here. Wait, who's the devil here? Seriously, I have no idea what you mean. Again: it am not talking about censorship by the government, I am simply talking about not listening to certain people. For me, in Germany, I would for example categorically refuse to listen to and engage in discussions with voters of the "AfD" party (right-wing party, with one leader that you can officially call a fascist based on a court decision) or the so called "Querdenker" people.