3 ms·
How is that inconsistent? Just because it's good to have access to something doesn't mean we want it everywhere. This goes for a lot of things. It would be a p
by Latty 5y ago
How is that inconsistent? Just because it's good to have access to something doesn't mean we want it everywhere.
This goes for a lot of things. It would be a problem if there was nowhere you could urinate, but that doesn't make rules against urinating in the street bad.
It is important that there are places you can't be censored, but that doesn't mean every place should be forced to be unfiltered firehoses. Curation has value. Should every newspaper be forced to platform anyone who sends them an article?
Enforced speech is just as harmful as prohibited speech. People should have the right to choose who they platform.
- DarylZero 5y agoWhether "we want it everywhere" and whether "it is the problem" are different questions. > It would be a problem if there was nowhere you could urinate, but that doesn't make rules against urinating in the street bad. If you couldn't urinate anywhere legally, you wouldn't consider the laws against urination a problem?
- Latty 5y agoI wouldn't advocate for laws against urination being "extinct", as the post I replied to did with de-platforming, no. I'd push for toilets, not the ability to piss in the street.