4 ms·
> If not then I'm afraid I must oppose some ideas in ways other than ignoring them. True. But trying to prevent further expression of those ideas, or retaliati
by mwcampbell 5y ago
> If not then I'm afraid I must oppose some ideas in ways other than ignoring them.
True. But trying to prevent further expression of those ideas, or retaliating against those who express them ("cancel culture" IIUC), isn't necessarily the best type of opposition. For example, disability rights isn't an academic issue for me and some of my friends. But when someone expresses opposition to the idea that websites should be required to be accessible, I don't try to silence them; I try to engage with them for the purpose of changing either their mind or mine.
- ss108 5y agoI'm more on your side here, but in the typical "cancel culture" scenario, the type of stuff people are trying to silence (e.g. re illegal immigrants) is much less nuanced and much more aggressive. The analogue would not be "websites shouldn't be required to be accessible", it's more often something like "websites shouldn't be accessible".
- danielheath 5y ago> I don't try to silence them; I try to engage with them for the purpose of changing either their mind or mine. To strong-man "Cancel culture" - trying to remove people from decision-making roles after they have signaled they intend to make harmful decisions is not - on the face of it - a ridiculous idea. > expresses opposition to the idea that websites should be required to be accessible If someone openly holding this view applies for a job in charge of your website, are you going to seriously consider their application? The point of cancel culture isn't to convince the person being cancelled, or to coerce those who agree with them by threat of losing their job. The point is to remove perceived political opponents from positions of influence.